BaseballGeeks
User: Guest16938
Posts: 0
Read Mode: Topics
Status: Guest
  BGEEKS Stats ~ Sign-Up As New User ~ Message Areas ~ FAQ

BaseballGeeks.com Home : BaseballGeeks : Headlines : Reading "Insurance company denies Bagwell claim " Thread

Message #2773 of 6634  *NEW*
To:  All
From:  
Reedster  
Subject:  Insurance company denies Bagwell claim
Date:  3/28/06, 08:27am
KISSIMMEE, Fla. -- In what is sure to be the first of many disagreements between the Houston Astros and the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, the insurance claim made by the club to recoup $15.6 million of the $17 million owed to Jeff Bagwell has been denied.
Astros owner Drayton McLane is preparing for litigation with the law firm Fisher, Boyd, Brown, Boudreaux and Huguenard, according to a Houston Chronicle report. No lawsuit has been filed yet.

"On March 13, 2006, Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. notified the Houston Astros that it had denied a total disability claim submitted by the Astros relating to Jeff Bagwell," attorney Ty Buthod, a partner at the Houston law firm of Baker Botts, which is representing Connecticut General, told the Chronicle. "The company determined that there had been no adverse change in Mr. Bagwell's condition or ability to play baseball between the end of last season, when he was an active member of the roster, and Jan. 31, 2006, the date the policy expired.

Previous Topic
Next Topic
Reply to Msg #2773
Back to Topics

1589 reads

1566 clickthrough(s)

You cannot start a topic in the Headlines or Classifieds area... if you want to post a new message, try one of our other message areas!


Message #2782 of 6634  *NEW*
To:  Reedster
From:  
The Olde English Ds  
Subject:  Re: Insurance company denies Bagwell claim
Date:  3/28/06, 12:18pm
graphic
Hold on...the policy expired at the end of January and Bags played later in spring training? On the surface it would seem the Astros don't have a solid case here. Reedster...what is the nerdy legal opinion?

--------------------------------------------------------
Go Tigers!!!
--------------------------------------------------------

Previous Topic
Next Topic
Reply to Msg #2782
Back to Topics

2282 reads


Message #2783 of 6634  *NEW*
To:  The Olde English Ds
From:  
Reedster  
Subject:  Re: Insurance company denies Bagwell claim
Date:  3/28/06, 12:24pm
>Hold on...the policy expired at the end of January and Bags
>played later in spring training? On the surface it would seem
>the Astros don't have a solid case here. Reedster...what is
>the nerdy legal opinion?

[in nerdy voice] The claim was made before the expiration, which is the answer to the question: "Why would the Astros treat Bagwell this way in the offseason" (i.e., they had to).

As I mentioned in one of our early podcasts (either Jan or Feb), I expected that the insurance company would deny the claim (particularly because Bagwell would try and play in the Spring).

The only hope for the Astros, of course, is that Bagwell retires. And, I think he is very likely to do that within the next few weeks.

If Bagwell ends up as, say, a DH for another team, the claim would be moot (and the Astros, of course, aren't likely to care because the new team would have to assume the salary -- or, at least, most of it).

Previous Topic
Next Topic
Reply to Msg #2783
Back to Topics

2282 reads


Message #2785 of 6634  *NEW*
To:  Reedster
From:  
The Olde English Ds  
Subject:  Re: Insurance company denies Bagwell claim
Date:  3/28/06, 12:39pm
graphic
Thanks for the explaination. So if Bagwell retires than the Astros have a stronger case. Do you think the Stros will recoup the money if that happens?

--------------------------------------------------------
Go Tigers!!!
--------------------------------------------------------

Previous Topic
Next Topic
Reply to Msg #2785
Back to Topics

2280 reads

RRBBS© Software, designed by Robert Reed.
Copyright, November, 2002. All Rights Reserved.

Site Meter