Tell Me :
Talk
If they lose money ('due to' Mick), then maybe we can expect more 'Greatest Hits' (I'm waiting for 'Meow...', 'Rrruff!', and 'Mooo...') and Vault releases!
"You Got to Moo,
You got to Moo...
Child-ha-ha-ha-ha
You Got to Moo...."
Or a special tour with 7 numbers featuring Taylor!
Well it is arguable as I said, but some would say that addiction is a form of slow suicide, especially at the level Keith and Ronnie have taken it.
I don't think it is quite so simple but the analogy is understandable. I mean if someone like a doctor tells you you are killing yourself with heroin or alcohol and you acknowledge that but continue to abuse the substance, isn't that like saying "yes I'm killing myself"? Even if you think it will take a while "because you have a strong constitution" or "it will take even longer because "I only use the purest of poisons" it still potentially shortens your life.
And like addiction is categorized as a disease, so are mental health problems which can lead to suicide. Both are likely treatable diseases.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching, being judgmental or expressing my personal beliefs, just throwing out a logical argument at your request. peace
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course we're on the Stones' side without reading the policy,
because Mick's had a hard enough year already without an insurance company prying into his dead lover's state
in an attempt to find an excuse not to honour a policy that the Stones duly paid for.
I like to think the Stones have enough lawyers to ensure that the wording of the policy was sound.
As someone up there said I reckon they'll reach a settlement, but it's just sorry-making when things work this way.
Besides, plenty of us have have been let down badly by insurance companies,
whose whole business is after all based on letting more people down than not,
while the Stones give everybody courage for years and years and years. Whose side should we be on?!
"More unusually, anything to do with the injury that [Keith Richards] suffered in 2006, when he was hit on the head by a coconut, will not be covered either."
If that's what the insurance company's records say, Keith can claim whatever he likes! But of course they don't - it's just the Daily Mail not doing its homework.
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-12 00:42 by Green Lady.
The Daily Mail Don't know the difference between a half decent newspaper and a hole in the ground
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
BlondeOnBonds
()
Date: November 10, 2014 22:18
Article below
[/url]http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/80993
[/url]http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/80993
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
odean73
()
Date: November 10, 2014 22:26
Also on the BBC web site under the entertainment section.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
sundevil
()
Date: November 10, 2014 23:51
here is a newsday article
[www.newsday.com]
what a bunch of weasels. i'm pretty sure it's already been established that money and the business were not a factor. could be wrong. their only true argument for not paying can only be "we never thought we would have to pay out a claim" what's worse is how far "no fair!, your honor" will carry them.
when the BS is flying, always factor in how these three words apply.
money changes everything.
[www.newsday.com]
what a bunch of weasels. i'm pretty sure it's already been established that money and the business were not a factor. could be wrong. their only true argument for not paying can only be "we never thought we would have to pay out a claim" what's worse is how far "no fair!, your honor" will carry them.
when the BS is flying, always factor in how these three words apply.
money changes everything.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
DoomandGloom
()
Date: November 11, 2014 00:57
Plus she's not his legal wife. Their feelings for each aside this is an issue as well. These guys hate losing money, if their insurance doesn't pan out is Mick responsible to the band for money lost? Seems to me Mick could be in the red after working his butt off touring the world.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 11, 2014 01:12
I didn't read the articles linked to in this thread but the BBC article indicated
that the policy specifically included nonspouses close to bandmembers (maybe even specifying names)
so the fact that they weren't married apparently is not an issue. The issue seems to be
that the insurance company doesn't want to pay. Surprise Surprise, backed with What a Shame.
that the policy specifically included nonspouses close to bandmembers (maybe even specifying names)
so the fact that they weren't married apparently is not an issue. The issue seems to be
that the insurance company doesn't want to pay. Surprise Surprise, backed with What a Shame.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: November 11, 2014 01:14
Seems to me Mick could be in the red after working his butt off touring the world.
.
Hah! Slim chance of that. Mick will certainly be better off financially that when they started although some lawyers are bound to be too. They will probably settle out of court for a mere $7 million or so......
They probably have good insurance that will pay them for the Hanging Rock cancellation too, although the insurance co. will probably argue (unsuccessfully) that Mick was predisposed to throat infections after swapping spit with as yet unnamed Aussie's. Did anyone else see the blond dreadlocked shiela who was exiting his hotel room? I'm curious....who was she? peace
.
Hah! Slim chance of that. Mick will certainly be better off financially that when they started although some lawyers are bound to be too. They will probably settle out of court for a mere $7 million or so......
They probably have good insurance that will pay them for the Hanging Rock cancellation too, although the insurance co. will probably argue (unsuccessfully) that Mick was predisposed to throat infections after swapping spit with as yet unnamed Aussie's. Did anyone else see the blond dreadlocked shiela who was exiting his hotel room? I'm curious....who was she? peace
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Beast
()
Date: November 11, 2014 01:27
So it's not only us plebs that insurance companies don't want to pay out to. Funny, that...
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
()
Date: November 11, 2014 02:00
Quote
DoomandGloom
Plus she's not his legal wife. Their feelings for each aside this is an issue as well. These guys hate losing money, if their insurance doesn't pan out is Mick responsible to the band for money lost? Seems to me Mick could be in the red after working his butt off touring the world.
If they lose money ('due to' Mick), then maybe we can expect more 'Greatest Hits' (I'm waiting for 'Meow...', 'Rrruff!', and 'Mooo...') and Vault releases!
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 11, 2014 02:14
Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRunQuote
DoomandGloom
Plus she's not his legal wife. Their feelings for each aside this is an issue as well. These guys hate losing money, if their insurance doesn't pan out is Mick responsible to the band for money lost? Seems to me Mick could be in the red after working his butt off touring the world.
If they lose money ('due to' Mick), then maybe we can expect more 'Greatest Hits' (I'm waiting for 'Meow...', 'Rrruff!', and 'Mooo...') and Vault releases!
"You Got to Moo,
You got to Moo...
Child-ha-ha-ha-ha
You Got to Moo...."
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: November 11, 2014 02:16
Just thinking....what are the chances an insurance co. would pay out if something happened to Ronnie or Keith? God forbid but these two have arguably been trying to kill themselves for years. Quite a bit clearer case than poor L'Wren....
peace
peace
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: November 11, 2014 02:25
<<what are the chances an insurance co. would pay out if something happened to Ronnie or Keith?>>
Oh, I'm sure they would pay out as agreed.... It's just that, heh-heh, given Woodie's rehab record and Keith's reputation, they probably require higher premiums.
Though, as Keith has noted before, several years back in one interview when the subject of his substance use and especially drinking was raised, he pointed out, correctly so, that Stones concert cancellations occurred due to health fanatic Mick, and usually because of throat issues or a cold.
Oh, I'm sure they would pay out as agreed.... It's just that, heh-heh, given Woodie's rehab record and Keith's reputation, they probably require higher premiums.
Though, as Keith has noted before, several years back in one interview when the subject of his substance use and especially drinking was raised, he pointed out, correctly so, that Stones concert cancellations occurred due to health fanatic Mick, and usually because of throat issues or a cold.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Rokyfan
()
Date: November 11, 2014 03:40
Apparently the issue concerns the specific language of the policy (policies?), concerning preexisting medical conditions, policies that nobody here has read. I'm no fan of insurance companies, but for some people, is it really enough just to know that its MJ on one side and an ins co on the other to know who is right? I think so.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Stones62
()
Date: November 11, 2014 04:44
"..these two have arguably been trying to kill themselves for years." Could you expound on that statement Naturalust? I don't think that was either Keith's or Ronnie's intention or that of most addicts.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
sdstonesguy
()
Date: November 11, 2014 04:46
Capitalism strikes again!
Kind of funny the Stones have the same trouble with insurance that most people do. Perhaps they will have to stay on hold for 5 hours before being transferred only to be disconnected. I gotta get into the insurance racket...take the money & cut the phone lines!
Kind of funny the Stones have the same trouble with insurance that most people do. Perhaps they will have to stay on hold for 5 hours before being transferred only to be disconnected. I gotta get into the insurance racket...take the money & cut the phone lines!
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
crawdaddy
()
Date: November 11, 2014 09:52
Insurance companys are full of fat cat executives who get big money salary and bonuses, just like bankers.
They ought to do the right thing and pay out.
They ought to do the right thing and pay out.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
thecitadel
()
Date: November 11, 2014 09:56
One of the on-line sources in the US had the extract from the Insurance policy naming all the individuals covered.
Hate it when insurers try and wriggle out of risks they cover - had the experience at work a couple of years ago. cost our company a fortune in lawyers to get the insurers to give-in.
Hate it when insurers try and wriggle out of risks they cover - had the experience at work a couple of years ago. cost our company a fortune in lawyers to get the insurers to give-in.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: November 11, 2014 10:33
Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
If they lose money ('due to' Mick), then maybe we can expect more 'Greatest Hits' (I'm waiting for 'Meow...', 'Rrruff!', and 'Mooo...') and Vault releases!
Or a special tour with 7 numbers featuring Taylor!
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: November 11, 2014 10:54
Quote
Stones62
"..these two have arguably been trying to kill themselves for years." Could you expound on that statement Naturalust? I don't think that was either Keith's or Ronnie's intention or that of most addicts.
Well it is arguable as I said, but some would say that addiction is a form of slow suicide, especially at the level Keith and Ronnie have taken it.
I don't think it is quite so simple but the analogy is understandable. I mean if someone like a doctor tells you you are killing yourself with heroin or alcohol and you acknowledge that but continue to abuse the substance, isn't that like saying "yes I'm killing myself"? Even if you think it will take a while "because you have a strong constitution" or "it will take even longer because "I only use the purest of poisons" it still potentially shortens your life.
And like addiction is categorized as a disease, so are mental health problems which can lead to suicide. Both are likely treatable diseases.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching, being judgmental or expressing my personal beliefs, just throwing out a logical argument at your request. peace
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 11, 2014 11:07
Quote
Rokyfan
Apparently the issue concerns the specific language of the policy (policies?), concerning preexisting medical conditions, policies that nobody here has read. I'm no fan of insurance companies, but for some people, is it really enough just to know that its MJ on one side and an ins co on the other to know who is right? I think so.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course we're on the Stones' side without reading the policy,
because Mick's had a hard enough year already without an insurance company prying into his dead lover's state
in an attempt to find an excuse not to honour a policy that the Stones duly paid for.
I like to think the Stones have enough lawyers to ensure that the wording of the policy was sound.
As someone up there said I reckon they'll reach a settlement, but it's just sorry-making when things work this way.
Besides, plenty of us have have been let down badly by insurance companies,
whose whole business is after all based on letting more people down than not,
while the Stones give everybody courage for years and years and years. Whose side should we be on?!
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
thecitadel
()
Date: November 11, 2014 14:08
The Insurance policy and all the arguments are now in the public domain - but you'll need to be an expert to assess the details.
All the people whose death (or life threatening illness) can cause a cancellation are listed by name and relationship - as is the premium payable (big) and a list of previous illnesses/exclusions (for the Stones themselves) and previous cancelled/postponed gigs where an insurance claim was made.
Sad that after the tragedy earlier this year all this has to be dragged through the courts.
All the people whose death (or life threatening illness) can cause a cancellation are listed by name and relationship - as is the premium payable (big) and a list of previous illnesses/exclusions (for the Stones themselves) and previous cancelled/postponed gigs where an insurance claim was made.
Sad that after the tragedy earlier this year all this has to be dragged through the courts.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 11, 2014 14:11
Sigh. Here's the Telegraph saying the insurance company also questions the note from Mick's doctor: [www.telegraph.co.uk]
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: November 11, 2014 15:28
... and the Daily Mail claiming they know just who and what is covered and what isn't..
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
thecitadel
()
Date: November 11, 2014 15:56
ALL the relevant documents are available for the Daily Mail or anyone else to read - filed in Utah court.
Interpretation is a different matter...
Interpretation is a different matter...
Re: Words of One Syllable
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: November 11, 2014 17:20
Quote
Green Lady
... and the Daily Mail claiming they know just who and what is covered and what isn't.
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
"More unusually, anything to do with the injury that [Keith Richards] suffered in 2006, when he was hit on the head by a coconut, will not be covered either."
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
gotdablouse
()
Date: November 11, 2014 19:02
Assuming this list has all the people whose "unexpected death" would "allow" Mick to stop performing, why is the doctor's note even an issue? I guess these sharks will throw everything at the wall to see what sticks...Also you'd assume that the insurers would have to perform any due diligence they deem applicable concerning the people on the list before signing off on the contract and taking the premium money? Doesn't seem like they have much of a leg to stand on claiming after the fact that such and such was not in a proper state of mind.
Right, the difference is that the Stones have access to the best possible lawyers who will make sure they get treated right...for a fee. Talking of which I wonder if insurance companies who refuse to pay up or use delaying tactics can get charged for costs, damages and/or interest if it is found they do have to pay up in the end? One would hope so...
--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-11 19:03 by gotdablouse.
Quote
Beast
So it's not only us plebs that insurance companies don't want to pay out to. Funny, that...
Right, the difference is that the Stones have access to the best possible lawyers who will make sure they get treated right...for a fee. Talking of which I wonder if insurance companies who refuse to pay up or use delaying tactics can get charged for costs, damages and/or interest if it is found they do have to pay up in the end? One would hope so...
--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-11 19:03 by gotdablouse.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: November 11, 2014 19:23
This brings to mind in Bill German's book where he says—because of insurance rules—on subsequent tours the Stones could not have gone to Muddy Waters's club in Chicago as on the Tattoo You tour. On subsequent tours if Keith broke his leg on stage, it was covered, but if he broke is leg descending the stairs of a dark club, it wasn't covered. So the Stones would've had to stay away from Muddy's club. A Stones fan confronted German angrily, (paraphrase) "The Stones can do anything they want and go anywhere they want!" German said, "Uh, sorry, they can't."
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: November 11, 2014 19:32
Quote
gotdablouse
or use delaying tactics /quote]
What an ugly term!
We at Collins Simpson and Thatcher we prefer to say "dilatory strategy"
Re: Words of One Syllable
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: November 11, 2014 20:34
Quote
with sssoulQuote
Green Lady
... and the Daily Mail claiming they know just who and what is covered and what isn't.
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
"More unusually, anything to do with the injury that [Keith Richards] suffered in 2006, when he was hit on the head by a coconut, will not be covered either."
If that's what the insurance company's records say, Keith can claim whatever he likes! But of course they don't - it's just the Daily Mail not doing its homework.
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-12 00:42 by Green Lady.
Re: Stones Insurance Battle Over Cancelled Gigs
Posted by:
desertblues68
()
Date: November 11, 2014 20:48
Quote
Green Lady
... and the Daily Mail claiming they know just who and what is covered and what isn't..
[www.dailymail.co.uk]
The Daily Mail Don't know the difference between a half decent newspaper and a hole in the ground
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
alexander paul , Captain Teague , Captainchaos , ChrisL , crholmstrom , DEmerson , fedecarp , Kevinstones78 , Martin90 , MJAGGER123 , Papo , perkmo , sepi , Sockers56 , Stilllife09 , Stonesfan2146 , StonyRoad , straycatuk , thorgal34 , TumblinDice76 , TW2019
Guests:
2044
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10