http://www.thelegalintelligencer.co...-Claims?slreturn=20160405144241#ixzz47o9xLpp3
Some excerpts for folks who may not be able to read via the LegalIntelligencer:
Pay particular attention to the underlined paragraph.
This is HUGE.......more discussion later....but, for now, the article:
"Penn State may not receive insurance coverage for damages stemming from much of the sexual abuse by convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky, a Philadelphia judge has ruled.
The ruling dashes much of the school’s chances for receiving insurance coverage for the abuse that formed the basis of a $60 million settlement the school entered into in 2013.
Ruling on numerous issues related to whether Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance will have to indemnify the school for Sandusky’s abuse, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer ruled Wednesday that an abuse and molestation exclusion in policies between 1992 and 1999 will bar coverage for incidents during that time period.
Much of the reported abuse by Sandusky, who was found guilty of 45 out of 48 charges in 2012, occurred after 1992.
Glazer further determined in the ruling that, although the abuse exclusion was dropped from policies after 1999, an “expected or intended” exclusion could apply to bar coverage for claims after 1998.
According to Glazer, the exclusion would bar coverage if officials with the school, including former president Graham Spanier and ex-senior vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz, would have expected or intended children to have been abused after they had received reports of Sandusky’s activities. Glazer said incidents of abuse were reported to them in 1998 and 2001, but they “apparently took no steps to prevent Sandusky from committing additional bad acts in the future.”
“The American public, of which Spanier and Schultz are members, had been exposed by the media to countless stories of priests, teachers and others who repeatedly sexually abused many children over many years. It is highly unlikely that anyone at the turn of this current century could reasonably claim ignorance of the existence and practice of sexual predators like Sandusky,” Glazer said.
However, he did not make a ruling on whether coverage should be barred under that provision, saying, “It is an issue for a trial whether PSU and its executive officers expected or intended future bodily injury to children once they became aware of Sandusky’s molestations, and thereby whether coverage under each subsequent policy containing the expected or intended exclusion is bared,” he said.
Kleinbard attorney, Steven J. Engelmyer, who is representing PMA, declined to comment, and Penn State did not return a call for comment Thursday morning."
Attorney Patrick J. Wolfe Jr. of Narducci, Moore, Fleisher, Roeberg & Wolfe is representing Penn State.
__________________________________
The obvious - in my mind, anyway - implication is that the firing of Spanier and Paterno (and to a lesser degree, the "leave" given to Cur and Sch) actively and impactfully worked against the interests of the institution they are duty bound to serve.
Those Scoundrel actions - particularly the firing of Spanier and Paterno, since they have no "out card" there (they can't blame it on the PA AG office), since neither Paterno nor Spanier had been indicted of any wrong-doing at the time - most certainly furthered the narrative that officials at PSU "had to know".
BANG!!! The A9 have to hammer on this ......beginning TODAY!!!!!!
This is the type of low-hanging fruit we need to begin to capitalize on.
STAT!!
Lets stop jerking around and start doing what we need to do!
Take these Scoundrels on, and set the record straight for all to see.
Some excerpts for folks who may not be able to read via the LegalIntelligencer:
Pay particular attention to the underlined paragraph.
This is HUGE.......more discussion later....but, for now, the article:
"Penn State may not receive insurance coverage for damages stemming from much of the sexual abuse by convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky, a Philadelphia judge has ruled.
The ruling dashes much of the school’s chances for receiving insurance coverage for the abuse that formed the basis of a $60 million settlement the school entered into in 2013.
Ruling on numerous issues related to whether Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance will have to indemnify the school for Sandusky’s abuse, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer ruled Wednesday that an abuse and molestation exclusion in policies between 1992 and 1999 will bar coverage for incidents during that time period.
Much of the reported abuse by Sandusky, who was found guilty of 45 out of 48 charges in 2012, occurred after 1992.
Glazer further determined in the ruling that, although the abuse exclusion was dropped from policies after 1999, an “expected or intended” exclusion could apply to bar coverage for claims after 1998.
According to Glazer, the exclusion would bar coverage if officials with the school, including former president Graham Spanier and ex-senior vice president for business and finance Gary Schultz, would have expected or intended children to have been abused after they had received reports of Sandusky’s activities. Glazer said incidents of abuse were reported to them in 1998 and 2001, but they “apparently took no steps to prevent Sandusky from committing additional bad acts in the future.”
“The American public, of which Spanier and Schultz are members, had been exposed by the media to countless stories of priests, teachers and others who repeatedly sexually abused many children over many years. It is highly unlikely that anyone at the turn of this current century could reasonably claim ignorance of the existence and practice of sexual predators like Sandusky,” Glazer said.
However, he did not make a ruling on whether coverage should be barred under that provision, saying, “It is an issue for a trial whether PSU and its executive officers expected or intended future bodily injury to children once they became aware of Sandusky’s molestations, and thereby whether coverage under each subsequent policy containing the expected or intended exclusion is bared,” he said.
Kleinbard attorney, Steven J. Engelmyer, who is representing PMA, declined to comment, and Penn State did not return a call for comment Thursday morning."
Attorney Patrick J. Wolfe Jr. of Narducci, Moore, Fleisher, Roeberg & Wolfe is representing Penn State.
__________________________________
The obvious - in my mind, anyway - implication is that the firing of Spanier and Paterno (and to a lesser degree, the "leave" given to Cur and Sch) actively and impactfully worked against the interests of the institution they are duty bound to serve.
Those Scoundrel actions - particularly the firing of Spanier and Paterno, since they have no "out card" there (they can't blame it on the PA AG office), since neither Paterno nor Spanier had been indicted of any wrong-doing at the time - most certainly furthered the narrative that officials at PSU "had to know".
BANG!!! The A9 have to hammer on this ......beginning TODAY!!!!!!
This is the type of low-hanging fruit we need to begin to capitalize on.
STAT!!
Lets stop jerking around and start doing what we need to do!
Take these Scoundrels on, and set the record straight for all to see.
Last edited:
