Judge opens door for lawsuits against Lance Armstrong

[djg21]

Insurance company suit goes forward on statute of limitations decision

Lance Armstrong can be subjected to a lawsuit from a second insurance company seeking to recoup bonuses paid to the Texan during his Tour de France reign.

According to the Associated Press, Travis County judge Darlene Byrne denied a request to dismiss a $3 million suit from Acceptance Insurance Holdings, which was contracted to pay Armstrong's bonuses for his now-disqualified victories in the 1999, 2000 and 2001 Tours de France.

Armstrong's attorneys argued that any statute of limitations on breach of contract or fraud expired in 2011, but AIH argued that the timing only started when Armstrong publicly admitted to doping in January of this year.

With that ruling, Mark Kincaid, the attorney for AIH said he will move to question Armstrong under oath.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-opens-door-for-lawsuits-against-lance-armstrong

[TPetsch]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRepJ27BHqxM--22rppcRWmKEp7_y_7ZvSzsDpiLAXyDRhdU6Gwhttp://fotos.lahora.com.ec/cache/8/82/82c/82ce/lance-se-queda-sin-titulos-20121022051949-82ced3b905c56dd3fc85ae404c094f24.jpg

[BumbleBeeDave]

THIS should get interesting real quick.

BBD

[CDM]

I thought it got boring real quick!

[branflakes]

post should open door for polarizing comments real quick.

[54ny77]

http://www.the5thfloor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/lance3.png

[Jaq]

Yawn. LA was soooo January.

[branflakes]

http://www.the5thfloor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/lance3.png
undeserved is subjective. though i definitely LOL!

[T.J.]

I thought it got boring real quick!

It is interesting to people who enjoy the drama

[branflakes]

i initially responded without paying much regard to anything beyond the headline. i am curious about some of the facts here though. i can understand a statute of limitations on breach of contract, but would any respectable insurance company allow a statute of limitations against fraud? it sounds like LA had some poor legal advice over the last 18 months or so, or did he?

i imagine the argument will now be evidence proving culpability for those specific bonuses beyond the wholesale 'yeah i doped to win,' admission. admitting guilt isn't the same thing as proving guilt. he's a pathological liar, and the defense can just as easily say he was lying during his oprah mea culpa.

LA is an easy punching bag right now. the company that initially agreed to pay him the winning bonuses surely had some beneficial reason to do so. i'm guessing the contracts will be parsed between the insurance company and the insured (not LA), and LA and the insured. i'm now curious about the contractual details.

in the meantime cycling dailies can continue to attract readers, for better or worse, by simply invoking LA.

[djg21]

i initially responded without paying much regard to anything beyond the headline. i am curious about some of the facts here though. i can understand a statute of limitations on breach of contract, but would any respectable insurance company allow a statute of limitations against fraud? it sounds like LA had some poor legal advice over the last 18 months or so, or did he?

i imagine the argument will now be evidence proving culpability for those specific bonuses beyond the wholesale 'yeah i doped to win,' admission. admitting guilt isn't the same thing as proving guilt. he's a pathological liar, and the defense can just as easily say he was lying during his oprah mea culpa.

LA is an easy punching bag right now. the company that initially agreed to pay him the winning bonuses surely had some beneficial reason to do so. i'm guessing the contracts will be parsed between the insurance company and the insured (not LA), and LA and the insured. i'm now curious about the contractual details.

in the meantime cycling dailies can continue to attract readers, for better or worse, by simply invoking LA.

The statute of limitations is a creature of statute. It precludes the commencement of an action after a period of years. The crucial issue here is when the statute began to run. When fraud is involved, the S of L can begin to run when the aggrieved party learns of the fraud (or reasonably should have learned of the fraud). This is called the "discovery rule," and makes good sense. It prevents the bad actor from running out the S of L while concealing his bad acts from the aggrieved person.

If Lance's contracts contained a clause prohibiting him from using illicit PEDs, and Lance intentionally concealed his use of PEDs while collecting his bonuses (or affirmatively insisted that he had raced clean), his subsequent admission of doping would be admissible to prove by a preponderance that Lance defrauded the insurer. The word "guilt" really should not be part of this discussion as this isn't a criminal prosecution.

[BumbleBeeDave]

He knows whereof he speaks.

BBD