How does this lawsuit affect us?

#27
#27
I smell a settlement, an insurance premium increase, which maybe results in more red ink for UTAD.
 
#28
#28
Jackson_Harris said:
We can now offer Gruden both the AD and the Head Coaching job.

Heck, if he can wait until March, he can take over for Cheeks, Hart and Dooley. He can be president, AD and head coach of the Tennessee Vols.
Click to expand...

Make Phil president, Dools AD, and Gruden HFC. When Kiffin retires from coaching he can be the VFL coordinator.
 
#30
#30
DemocratVol said:
Usually for such large groups like this, the self insured retention or deductible is pretty damn high (think millions). That's how the insurance company can survive. That and there is usually a cap on damages, and, most often, punitive damages are not covered. Only the compensatory, general, and special damages.
Click to expand...
More likely in the $250-$500k range
 
#32
#32
SandoVOL said:
Hire Dooley as AD, in turn he hires gruden as head coach. Everyone is happy, a bammer is without a job, and we will have a big name guy in recruiting. Done.
Click to expand...

I could live with this. Diplomacy at work. Sando, bringing peace between Doorites and Grudenites on Volnation.
 
#33
#33
Carl Pickens said:
More likely in the $250-$500k range
Click to expand...

Methinks you are way off for an exposure this wide (assuming the risk was properly underwritten). It is not uncommon to see self insurance retentions in the 3-6 million dollar range. It doesn't matter in this instance because the University is an institute of higher education and is a state entity and, therefore, is self insured under TCA 9-8-101. The general liability for each person is capped at 300k per person and one million per occurrence.

Again, Hart could be held liable over and above (or instead of) UT since the alleged act of harassment and discrimination is prohibited and the University could argue he was a rogue agent acting beyond the scope of employment. Don't be surprised if UT's lawyers request a declaratory action by a judge to absolve themselves from liability if evidence shows Hart went out on his own on this.

My qualifications for this opinion: Associate of General Insurance from The Institutes, Associate in Claims from The Institutes, credit towards Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter, 12 years experience as a claims state manager in property and casualty, 5 time certified expert in court regarding matters of legal liability and negligence, qualified expert in matters of commercial general liability and product defect, Arbitration Forum certified panelist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
DemocratVol said:
Methinks you are way off for an exposure this wide (assuming the risk was properly underwritten). It is not uncommon to see self insurance retentions in the 3-6 million dollar range. It doesn't matter in this instance because the University is an institute of higher education and is a state entity and, therefore, is self insured under TCA 9-8-101. The general liability for each person is capped at 300k per person and one million per occurrence.

Again, Hart could be held liable over and above (or instead of) UT since the alleged act of harassment and discrimination is prohibited and the University could argue he was a rogue agent acting beyond the scope of employment. Don't be surprised if UT's lawyers request a declaratory action by a judge to absolve themselves from liability if evidence shows Hart went out on his own on this.

My qualifications for this opinion: Associate of General Insurance from The Institutes, Associate in Claims from The Institutes, credit towards Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter, 12 years experience as a claims state manager in property and casualty, 5 time certified expert in court regarding matters of legal liability and negligence, qualified expert in matters of commercial general liability and product defect, Arbitration Forum certified panelist.
Click to expand...

BOOM!!!

I damn sure ain't gonna argue this.
 
#35
#35
vols-1 said:
umbrella policy
Click to expand...

I wonder if you have ever taken a look at an umbrella policy and read what it actually covers. Intentional torts are definitely "not on the menu", I can assure you that ("sexual assault" was mentioned in this thread somewhere).

Furthermore, I would wonder what company would write gender descrimination insurance.

EDIT: See "DemocratVol's" post ^^. Looks spot on.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
The lawsuit will be thrown out. This whole thing is not only frivolous, but for Jennings to subject Summit to anything like this, says a whole lot about her character. If people remember, Pat and Tyler said that the decision had been made earlier in the year by them. So, outside of Jennings being pissed that her position got eliminated by the AD, there is nothing here about Summit. Remember, this all started when Jennings got canned, yet she got a full retirement, and nothing was ever said about Pat until recently. If anyone should be ashamed here, it should be Jennings, for subjecting Summit to a possible lawsuit like this in her condition.
 
#38
#38
DemocratVol said:
Methinks you are way off for an exposure this wide (assuming the risk was properly underwritten). It is not uncommon to see self insurance retentions in the 3-6 million dollar range. It doesn't matter in this instance because the University is an institute of higher education and is a state entity and, therefore, is self insured under TCA 9-8-101. The general liability for each person is capped at 300k per person and one million per occurrence.

Again, Hart could be held liable over and above (or instead of) UT since the alleged act of harassment and discrimination is prohibited and the University could argue he was a rogue agent acting beyond the scope of employment. Don't be surprised if UT's lawyers request a declaratory action by a judge to absolve themselves from liability if evidence shows Hart went out on his own on this.
My qualifications for this opinion: Associate of General Insurance from The Institutes, Associate in Claims from The Institutes, credit towards Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter, 12 years experience as a claims state manager in property and casualty, 5 time certified expert in court regarding matters of legal liability and negligence, qualified expert in matters of commercial general liability and product defect, Arbitration Forum certified panelist.
Click to expand...

Informative Post. Thanks for contributing and cutting down unnecessary speculation.

I am not so sure I agree with you about Hart, though, factually. I am not at all expecting this to play out this way. Anyway, time will tell.
 
#39
#39
DemocratVol said:
Methinks you are way off for an exposure this wide (assuming the risk was properly underwritten). It is not uncommon to see self insurance retentions in the 3-6 million dollar range. It doesn't matter in this instance because the University is an institute of higher education and is a state entity and, therefore, is self insured under TCA 9-8-101. The general liability for each person is capped at 300k per person and one million per occurrence.

Again, Hart could be held liable over and above (or instead of) UT since the alleged act of harassment and discrimination is prohibited and the University could argue he was a rogue agent acting beyond the scope of employment. Don't be surprised if UT's lawyers request a declaratory action by a judge to absolve themselves from liability if evidence shows Hart went out on his own on this.

My qualifications for this opinion: Associate of General Insurance from The Institutes, Associate in Claims from The Institutes, credit towards Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter, 12 years experience as a claims state manager in property and casualty, 5 time certified expert in court regarding matters of legal liability and negligence, qualified expert in matters of commercial general liability and product defect, Arbitration Forum certified panelist.
Click to expand...

Not to get super insurance nerdy here, but I have never seen a company refuse to indemnify a manager for an employment practices claim. Really depends on the nature of the suit as to how the insurance coverage is triggered. I underwrote EPLI, directors & officers, etc. for a large national insurance company for a few years.

Is the university self insured for for directors/officers? Would be surprised to hear this. I would say the university's D&O policy (if they have one) has a non-indemnifiable (i.e. UT does not "back up" DH for the decisions he made on behalf of UT) clause that would pick up his liability and protect him from the instance you suggested. That's why upper level managers and the BOD would potentially refuse to serve with an entity without this coverage, because they could open themselves to personal liability and pay personal assets.

Ugh, it's way too early to be talking about work...
 
#40
#40
If Hart did this to Pat Summit...then he should be terminated immediately!! To put pressure on the greatest BB coach of all time would be bad enough but telling her she wasn't the coach after 38 years is unacceptable!!

Shouldn't affect the football program at all other than losing a classless AD!!
 
#42
#42
HvilleCommando said:
I have just read the news articles and not much more but it seems people are mad at Hart for all this which could affect his job security. Hope Dooley gets this show on the road and I think he does, but what happens if he doesn't and we are forced to make a change with a AD with his job in question?

It's all hypothetical, but if we did have to make a change in coach it would be hard to get a top coach we need, when we have uncertainty at the top of the AD..


What say you all? I just wish Pat never put her name in this, otherwise it would just be a story for a day or 2 and would be a forgotten story..
Click to expand...

Does not affect me at all!
 
#43
#43
Hart is a state employee. Remember Hammy still got his state pension. As a state employee at a state institution, it falls under the self insurance. I would suspect Hart will be dragged into the suit individually. At which time, Hart should hope he has some sort of D&O coverage. Will be interesting to see if it is deemed an intentional or malicious act which could be excluded.

We will never know because this will never see a courtroom and you can bet the bank a confidential sealed settlement will be bought by the state.
 
#44
#44
g8terh8ter_eric said:
The lawsuit will be thrown out. This whole thing is not only frivolous, but for Jennings to subject Summit to anything like this, says a whole lot about her character. If people remember, Pat and Tyler said that the decision had been made earlier in the year by them. So, outside of Jennings being pissed that her position got eliminated by the AD, there is nothing here about Summit. Remember, this all started when Jennings got canned, yet she got a full retirement, and nothing was ever said about Pat until recently. If anyone should be ashamed here, it should be Jennings, for subjecting Summit to a possible lawsuit like this in her condition.
Click to expand...

I think (hope) you're right.
 
#45
#45
As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), there has to be a complaint to the EEOC. I believe that was filed. The lawsuit will proceed if, and only if, the EEOC agrees with the complaint. Then the case would be heard on merits. I don't think anyone expects anything other than a quiet settlement.
 
#46
#46
OrangeByBirth said:
As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer), there has to be a complaint to the EEOC. I believe that was filed. The lawsuit will proceed if, and only if, the EEOC agrees with the complaint. Then the case would be heard on merits. I don't think anyone expects anything other than a quiet settlement.
Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily have to be an EEOC suit, people will sue anybody for anything all the time in my experience with it. Often times the EEOC is involved though.

95% of the time these suits/claims are settled as opposed to judgment. Most people will walk with far less than they're asking for and drop it. I'll bet we lose more in PR than we pay out.
 
#48
#48
DemocratVol said:
Methinks you are way off for an exposure this wide (assuming the risk was properly underwritten). It is not uncommon to see self insurance retentions in the 3-6 million dollar range. It doesn't matter in this instance because the University is an institute of higher education and is a state entity and, therefore, is self insured under TCA 9-8-101. The general liability for each person is capped at 300k per person and one million per occurrence.

Again, Hart could be held liable over and above (or instead of) UT since the alleged act of harassment and discrimination is prohibited and the University could argue he was a rogue agent acting beyond the scope of employment. Don't be surprised if UT's lawyers request a declaratory action by a judge to absolve themselves from liability if evidence shows Hart went out on his own on this.

My qualifications for this opinion: Associate of General Insurance from The Institutes, Associate in Claims from The Institutes, credit towards Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter, 12 years experience as a claims state manager in property and casualty, 5 time certified expert in court regarding matters of legal liability and negligence, qualified expert in matters of commercial general liability and product defect, Arbitration Forum certified panelist.
Click to expand...
If all the allegations against Hart are true and are able to prove, you may be right!
 
#49
#49
This is two seperate incidents that show poor judgement from Hart. IMO he needs to go. Surely there is something in his contract that would eliminate any buyout if sexual discrimination becomes an issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top