Insurance company to sue Lance Armstrong for millions in bonus prizes

[alp227]

Source: CNN

The sports insurance company that paid Lance Armstrong more than $10 million in bonuses plans to file a lawsuit to recover its money, an attorney for SCA Promotions told CNN on Wednesday.

Jeffrey Tillotson said SCA has already asked the disgraced former cycling champ for the money back.

"We made our demand for the return of the money we paid him for winning the Tour de France races where the titles were stripped," Tillotson told CNN's Ashleigh Banfield. "Mr. Armstrong and his legal team have not complied with that demand."

Tillotson said the suit, which has not been filed yet, will ask for the return of $12 million in bonus money paid for wins from 2002 to 2005 and for millions in legal costs and interest.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/justice/sports-lance-armstrong-lawsuit/index.html

[Kelvin Mace]

1. This is the type of lawsuit that gives lawyers

wet dreams.

It will all boil down to the language of the contract and whether there is any proviso dealing with retroactive stripping of the title. If the contract simply says he will be awarded money for winning the title, he technically did win, but later had the win invalidated.

Suits like this show off the law at its sleaziest.

[kestrel91316]

2. If he had the slightest shred of integrity, Armstrong would simply give the money back

with a sincere apology. Then at least he could crow about how he did the right thing even though it hurt.

Instead, he wants to hang onto his ill-gotten gains. What a douche.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Abso-frakkin-lutely!

Though I think of people like him more as colostomy bags as opposed to douches.

[11 Bravo]

7. Yeah! Just like every other professional athlete who was ever suspended for PED gave back ...

their salaries, bonuses, etc. Wait ... what? None of them? EVER?

Ahhh, fuck it! Let the burning of the witch commence!

[kestrel91316]

15. I'm not talking about anybody else at the moment. I'm talking about Armstrong.

But now that you've brought it up........yeah, all those other cheating douches need to give back THEIR ill-gotten gains, too.

[Incitatus]

3. Did the insurance company lose money because he cheated?

I'm assuming this was a sponsor. They still got their name out there for several years and must have attracted new business. Did him being stripped of the titles cost the company clients?

[wtmusic]

6. They lost the bonus money. That's fraud. nt

[naaman fletcher]

9. True,

But the underlying claim has to be that they suffered damages. He will likely try to show that not only did they not suffer damages by his winning (and them paying) but that in fact they profited greatly.

[wtmusic]

11. The fact that they paid the money is indisputable

and those payments were based on him winning, which he only accomplished fraudulently. In essence, they were sold a bum bill of goods and they're entitled to their money back. It will be up to Lance to prove any PR benefit outweighs that.

Though I"m making it sound much simpler than it undoubtedly is (there was also a previous lawsuit with associated legal fees) I don't see how Lance can get away without a big hit.

[naaman fletcher]

12. Easy...

If he didn't win, yes they would not have paid the money, but they also would not have reaped the substantial gains from his winning and their sponsorship of him.

I.E., they profited off of his cheating, and therefore there are no damages.

That will be his argument. I am not saying that he will win, but it's reasonable.

It would certainly work against a generic sponsor where no bonuses were paid.

[wtmusic]

13. Doesn't work that way.

If you go to a car dealer and purchase a car, and you find out they've fraudulently given you a smaller engine, they still have to give you your money back.

They can't simply say you've saved money on fuel, and therefore it's a wash.

The bonuses themselves are damages because fraud is involved.

[naaman fletcher]

14. Well,

I don't think that one is a good analogy, but we will see where this goes.

[cstanleytech]

18. But in this case the insurance company took the car home, liked its looks and drove it around

for a years to attract the girls, found a nice one, married her, settled down and had kids but now they want their money back because it doesnt fit their family anymore.
Translation, they paid him to win and unless there is some sort of stipulation regarding turning the money back over to them if he did something illegal to win they might well be sol.

[wtmusic]

19. I don't know what the statute of limitations is

but as long as they're within that timeframe it doesn't matter at all when there's fraud involved.

They could, with equal justification, say the millions they paid Lance could have gone to another sports star with an enduring reputation that would have earned them money well into the future.

None of that matters.

[cstanleytech]

21. Like I said it all depends on what the contract says.

If all it said was that he had to win with no clause for returning that money they might be sol especially if as Incitatus pointed out a they used that to further their business.
Now who might have a case to sue him and get the money might be the person who came in 2nd, they might actually have a case to claim the money as being stolen from them.

[naaman fletcher]

8. Exactly

Lance will argue that their are no damages. He will show how much everyone who sponsored him benefitted.

He will also probably argue that they knew what he was doing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Yes, they did lose money (he sued them for some of it, first); no, they're not a sponsor

SCA Promotions is a Dallas company that indemnifies sponsors who offer prizes based on athletic accomplishments. Armstrong and Tailwind Sports, the firm that managed Armstrong’s cycling team, sued SCA after the company, citing doping allegations, refused to pay the $5 million bonus Tailwind promised the cyclist for winning the 2004 Tour de France.

The case went to arbitration and SCA agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle the case. Armstrong’s attorney, Mark Fabiani, sent a copy of the 2006 settlement agreement to the Daily News, pointing out that the agreement says “no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award.”

“The insurance company has no right to reopen this case,” Fabiani said.

But SCA lawyers and executives say that’s hogwash, especially since Armstrong — after years of denials and attacks on critics — acknowledged that he had used performance-enhancing drugs en route to his seven Tour de France victories during his interview with Oprah Winfrey last month.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/suit-force-lance-clean-oath-article-1.1257529

[KansDem]

5. They'll have to catch him first...

[magic59]

10. Poor Lance, he just ran or biked with the wrong crowd

<p></p>

[u4ic]

16. I didn't know Georgie actually biked

I thought he just kept falling off.

[roxy1234]

20. This is one rare exception where

I am going to side with the insurance company. Lance, this is what you made me do

[AngryAmish]

22. Why would Armstrong confess?

I would be at my home sitting on a giant pile of money and laughing.

BUt he had to be in the spotlight...