Injured Georgia Player Suing University Over Insurance: In the better late than never department, this item from around Christmas.

Former University of Georgia defensive back Decory Bryant said Tuesday that he is suing the school's Athletic Association and fired assistant athletics director Hoke Wilder . . .



Now a senior at Georgia, Bryant, according to the lawsuit, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Clarke County on Friday, claiming the defendants were negligent for not securing an insurance policy for him in case of a career-threatening injury. Bryant suffered a career-ending spine injury in a game vs. the University of Alabama-Birmingham during his junior season just days after starting talks with Wilder about establishing an insurance policy that would cover Bryant up to $500,000.



The complaint claims Bryant and two other football players, who met standards to be declared eligible for the NFL draft after their junior seasons, sought to participate in the Exceptional Student Athlete Disability Insurance Program. On Oct. 21, 2003, Bryant notified Wilder that he wanted a policy — the Athletic Association used Atlanta-based Entertainment and Sports Insurance Experts (ESIX) — and that his parents would pay the premium of $5,103, according to the complaint.



Wilder "responded by advising the Plaintiff that he did not have to worry about the premium immediately, that his request for coverage would be taken care of and that the papers for him to sign would be in his locker at the end of the day of the following day," according to the complaint.

Two days later, Bryant suffered a career-ending injury. The insurance company refused to backdate the forms that had not yet been signed and denied coverage. Wilder denied that he would secure a policy for Bryant and the two other players, claiming that he stated he would "place an inquiry with various brokers" to see if the student-athletes were eligible for insurance.



The suit is asking for $500,000, plus punitive damages.

Read More

Even More Skiing and the Law: I guess you could say I have skiing on the brain. Perhaps it is because I am going skiing for the first time ever in a few weeks (Can you blog with a broken leg?) But, there have been a number of interesting articles about the constant intersection between skiing and the law.



The Aspen Times explores the legal liability of a resort stemming from a skier's death in December. Under the Colorado Ski Safety Act, each skier assumes the risks inherent in the sport, but this skier collided with a snowmobile racing up the slope. Are snowmobiles one of the inherent risks? It is not included in the statute, but a judge could still rule that it is. Even if the resort is found liable, however, the statute caps damages against ski resorts at $1 million. This shows the importance of the ski industry in Colorado. Even though skiers themselves may face increasing legal liability, the legislature has acted to definitely preclude large awards against the incredibly valuable resorts and mountains.

Read More

Clarett is Not Done: Even though Maurice Clarett is eligible for the NFL draft in April, he is still asking the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Standing probably will not be an issue, because although declaratory relief (i.e., an injunction mandating that the NFL make him draft-eligible) will be moot, Clarett could still get monetary damages for not being able to pursue his career.



Although I disagree with his legal position, it is good to see that he still believes in the merits of the debate (or at least, his lawyers do). I see no chance that the Supreme Court will take the case, but you never know until you try. And, it exposes the Court to the issue so that when it arises again (and it will arise again), the Court may be more inclined to hear it. Given the bulldog strategy of the NFL to litigate all claims and the increasing number of talented underclassmen (i.e., Adrian Peterson), the Supreme Court most likely will one day have a say on this matter, like they did in baseball free agency and basketball draft eligibility.



Turning to the sports side of things, how high will a Maurice Clarett or a Mike Williams go in this year's draft? Almost certainly not as high as if they had stayed in school and played to the same level of their first season(s). I believe Williams will go high because of the success of Willis McGahee. Many people thought the Bills were crazy for taking McGahee so high because of the devastating knee injury he suffered in his last college game. But he rehabbed and returned to the same level of greatness he exhibited in college in the second half of this season. Thus, most teams would expect that Williams, despite the rust of a year off, will return to the same greatness he exhibited at USC.



Clarett is a tougher case. He will certainly be drafted in the first five rounds, but teams will be wary because (1) he played only one season in college and (2) that was two years ago. Was the one season a fluke? Will he be in any kind of game shape? Will be remember the little things that turn a good player into a great one, but can only be gained against real football competition? A team could get a great steal with Clarett, or a great bust. It will be an interesting pick to watch.

Read More

More on the L.A(naheim). Angels: The LA Times asks an interesting question that could form the basis of the legal argument: just where in Anaheim is Los Angeles? If Anaheim is to be the name of the team, then how does LA fit in?



Richard at the Pearly Gates (an excellent Angels blog) has more on this controversy.



Could the New York Giants of East Rutherford be far behind? Let's hope not.



The press is having a field day with this decision. Here is but one example.



And there is more to come on the legal front, I am certain.

Read More

More on Skiing: As I discussed in this earlier post, injuries for ski collisions can result in legal liability for the individual skiers, including even possible criminal sanctions. But another very real issue in the ski community is the liability of resorts and the owners of the slopes themselves. And as skiers increasingly demand more difficult runs in "out-of-bounds" areas, rather than on the traditional runs, does the potential for legal liability increase? Not necessarily.



First, ski resorts are acting proactively to limit their liability. As an example, Mt. Rose in Tahoe has made available some of these runs for more advanced skiers, but does not permit its employees to take skiers on these runs as a representative of the resort. Guides must put on vests and cover any Mt. Rose logos when surviving as guides on these more dangerous slopes.



In addition, skiers most certainly assume the risk when going on these runs. Those going on the runs must sign legal release forms acknowledging that they are advanced skiers and that the slopes are risky. Resorts have also noted that their insurance premiums have not increased as a result of opening the more dangerous runs.



Thus, for now at least, this seems to be a good marriage of supply and demand and the legal regime. Advanced skiers want more difficult runs; resorts are happy to provide them; and the legal regime seems to protect the resorts to allow for it.

Read More

Adventure Sports News: Admittedly, I do not know a great deal about the world of adventure sports. In fact, I will be going skiing for the first time in a few weeks. But, this news seems to be generating some excitement in the sports world:

Quiksilver Inc. said Monday that it has been in talks with Skis Rossignol about an acquisition that would make the Huntington Beach company a major player in winter sports equipment, fully extending its range from surf to powder. The possibility of a union between the biggest name in surf wear and the world's best-known ski company sparked interest among analysts, ski industry experts and investors.

You can read more here.

Read More

Why not the O.C. Angels? The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Are you kidding me? This is possibly the worst sports name since Oriole Park at Camden Yards or Toronto Rock. One, it is too long. Two, it is two cities. How can a team be in two cities? The team did it because it wanted to reach out to the greater Los Angeles area and increase its marketing: after all, where is Anaheim? But then again, where is Green Bay? Simply said, this is quite possibly the worst "compromise" the Angels could have reached.



It certainly has not made the city of Anaheim happy. The city will challenge the name change in court, saying that it violates the team's lease agreement with the city for Anaheim Stadium. It certainly violates common sense, but does it really violate the lease agreement?



Section 11(f) of the Stadium Lease Agreement between the Angels and the City states, "Tenant will change the name of the Team to include the name ‘Anaheim’ therein, such change to be effective no later than the commencement of the 1997 season." The new name may be confusing and it may be unwieldly, but it does contain Anaheim. Thus, it does not appear to violate the letter of the agreement.



But it certainly seems to violate the spirit of the agreement. The city obviously included the clause because it wanted the team to be known as the Anaheim Angels -- which would bring attention to the city that has given so much to the team. Scoreboards and announcers say "Anaheim." The MLB website links to "Anaheim." Under the new regime, these most likely will be changed to "Los Angeles (A)."



The city is making just this argument, stating that "the redundant and confusing 'Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim' which the Angels have proposed using also would violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which the law attaches to every contract in the State of California." Depending on which judge they get, they may actually be able to win. After all, a team is traditionally referred to by the city before the nickname (though, arguably, this is the first time a team name has featured a city before and after the nickname). But, the city will make a convincing argument that Anaheim will be dropped, leaving only Los Angeles and a breached agreement.



Adopting "Los Angeles" will not save the Angels -- a savvy marketing strategy will. The team should keep the name of the city that has provided it with support and funding over the years and drop the ridiculous double name.

Read More