I work in the Insurance Industry although not within the injury sector and thought it was quite interesting the decision and thought there was some merit to dispute the decision by QBE.
Not much information, but just news that they will dispute which they have every right to do.
The Parramatta Eels are preparing to take QBE to court over its denial of a career-ending payout to former star Anthony Watmough, it has been reported.
QBE, the insurer of the NRL, refused to pay a $1.2 million claim for a career-ending knee injury suffered by the Eels star in 2016.
The insurer argued that the injury was pre-existing when it ended Watmough’s career less than a year into a four year contract with the Eels.
Max Donnelly, Eels chairman, told The Australian that the side is now “virtually certain,” to go to court with the insurance firm.
“The process now is we will have to gather the medical evidence to contradict the determination,” Donnelly continued.
In 2016, QBE stated that Watmough suffered from osteoarthritis in his left knee, pre-dating his knee injury, which occurred during pre-season training in 2016.
The denial of Watmough’s claim could see other NRL clubs liable for millions of dollars in payouts that they thought would be covered by QBE as more players are believed to have lodged claims with the insurer since Watmough’s case.
Following the career-ending injury to Newcastle Knights player Alex McKinnon in 2014, QBE was brought into the NRL as the insurer of the top 25 players at each club.
Replies
So another 2-3years of litigation over this. Insurance companies are ruthless.
Agreed. They are more than happy to take your money but when it comes to paying out they will go to any lengths to deny a claim. Not just QBE its all of them. Makes you wonder if its worth taking out any kind of insurance.
To be honest, with Stewart and Matai im not really sure, i really dont have any time for what happens at Manly on a good day.
The main difference though that i can see is that with Watmough, he was geared up and ready to run out round 1 2016 - well not just round 1, but also a trial match. His "career ending" injury was a result of a single event - Beau Scott friendly fire at training.
Of course it can be argued that the injury was pre-existing and has been aggravated, the fact is Choc was ready to run out and play a season. No one can predict how long into the season he would have lasted.
All league fans (not just Parra fans) need to follow this. If insurance companies can easily claim an injury is pre-existing it will forever change the way players are recruited. Take the Inglis injury. On the money he would want, would a club take the risk on signing him just in case he injured that knee again. The insurance would reject a claim based on pre-existing.
As Hamish says, the insurance companies are ruthless. My eldest dislocated his shoulder in an U/18s game last season. If we played in the NRL could that injury be declared as pre-existing? Where would it end?
Time for Mr Greenburg and Mr Grant to step up and protect their game and players.
Insurance 101
Insurance 201 (when sports people are involved)
Insurance 301
I have to say though GIO are very good with their customer service. My uncle was in a car accident and wasn't at fault. His car was damaged so GIO gave him a hire car free of charge, organised for his repairs and didn't charge him any excess while processing him his claim.
I have since switched from AAMI to GIO after my car was written off and AAMI wanted to charge me the excess and wouldn't pay anything for a hire car because they claimed the driver at fault was contesting it even though he went up the back of me. He said another car hit him and drove off and it took until I looked up the law and pointed out to AAMI that unless he had filed a police report within 24 hours of the accident about the hit and run then he was legally liable. It took me 3 weeks to settle it.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next