- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Duke's Counter Claim filed by mistake; Oops! The Duke Insurance Claim Case | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 18 2009, 11:22 AM (1,551 Views) | |
| Baldo | Feb 18 2009, 11:22 AM Post #1 |
|
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2008cv00854/50149/16/0.html Oops! February 12, 2009 16 ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM filed by DUKE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. (MCDOUGAL, GREGG) Modified on 2/13/2009 to add text (Wilson, JoAnne). Modified on 2/13/2009 to correct language and to remove sealed information (Contreras, Jamie). (Entered: February 12, 2009) February 12, 2009 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENT(S) re 16 Response. Wrong event, when selecting RESPONSE it sets a REPLY deadline. Refile choosing the correct event. (Wilson, JoAnne) (Entered: February 13, 2009) February 12, 2009 NOTICE of Docket Text/Event Modification re 16 Response: Document filed in error, public access to document terminated. (Wilson, JoAnne) (Entered: February 13, 2009) Well it is still visible here's the pdf for our legal guys! http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2008cv00854/50149/16/0.pdf Edited by Baldo, Feb 18 2009, 12:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| jewelcove | Feb 18 2009, 03:22 PM Post #2 |
|
From Paragraph 18 "...One of the claims that Duke reiterated to National Union was a February 2007 request from parents of two of the unindicted members of the Lacrosse team requesting that Duke consider tolling or waiving the statute of limitations so that discussions could continue...." What has that length of statute of limitations? (About 1 year?) |
![]() |
|
| jewelcove | Feb 18 2009, 03:32 PM Post #3 |
|
"62. It is admitted that the answers of DUHS, Arico, Manley and Levicy are the best evidence of their contents." The suit seems to involve the answers of Levicy, Arico, Manly, & DUHS. Who asked those questions? When? What could they have been about? Edited by jewelcove, Feb 18 2009, 03:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| jewelcove | Feb 18 2009, 03:37 PM Post #4 |
|
Feb 2007 would have been before AG Cooper declared that there had been no crime and therefore the LAX players were INNOCENT. |
![]() |
|
| teddy bear | Feb 18 2009, 04:35 PM Post #5 |
|
It's amazing that Duke admits that it settled with the "Duke Three" w/o informing its insurance carrier and to this day has refused to let the carrier see the release. |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Feb 18 2009, 05:10 PM Post #6 |
|
jewelcove, "What has that length of statute of limitations? (About 1 year?)" -- Defamation (libel and slander) “The suit seems to involve the answers of Levicy, Arico, Manly, & DUHS. Who asked those questions? When? What could they have been about? " -- Paragraph 57-64 refers to Duke's motion to dismiss. In their amended complaint, the non-indicted players claim that Levicy, Manly, etc. were negligent in their capacity as agents of the police in collecting and reporting the sexual assault examination findings. Duke countered that the asserted claims sound like medical malpractice, which would be easier to defeat. However, based on the insurance contract language, NU only covers negligence claims. Duke's wholly owned subsidiary, DCC, covers malpractice claims. So, we now find ourselves in a classic “the chicken or the egg?” situation. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 18 2009, 06:49 PM Post #7 |
|
Surely a mistake. Because we all know that Brodhead and co. were helpless and unable to determine if the accused could prove their own innocence, and had to wait until the conclusion of the legal process. I.E., they couldn't possibly have deduced in Feb. 2007 that the defendants were innocent and therefore had a cause to sue. (Because, if they had believed by then that the defendants were innocent, then surely as men of honor they would have said so publicly and supported their falsely accused students openly...) (insert sarcasm smiley) |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Feb 18 2009, 11:19 PM Post #8 |
|
ABC News Law & Justice Unit DURHAM, N.C., Jan. 3, 2007 Suspended Duke University lacrosse players Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann have been invited to return to the school as students. <snip> Source |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 18 2009, 11:54 PM Post #9 |
|
Jan. 3, 2007
How can you "balance" a presumption of innocence?
Well, either there was evidence to point to their guilt in April of 2006, or there wasn't. What changed (other than public opinion)? (It would have gone against the prevailing public opinion in April to have "struck the balance" in favor of supporting the accused; and against prevailing public opinion in January to have "struck the balance" in favor of not supporting them.)
Sorry, but that train pulled out of the station a long time ago, and Brodhead and co. missed it.
Still hedging their bets... What "circumstances" have changed substantially? (Other than the public opinion referenced above)? Surely Duke Admin. were in a position to know the accused were innocent back in April of 2006. . . Edited by Quasimodo, Feb 18 2009, 11:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Payback | Feb 19 2009, 11:40 AM Post #10 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| jewelcove | Feb 19 2009, 11:43 AM Post #11 |
|
1/3/07 ******** Chairman of the BOT Steel said this about cancelling 2006 Lacrosse the season (which many thought implied guilt)
From the Peter Boyer interview with The New Yorker Edited by jewelcove, Feb 19 2009, 11:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| parentofbear | Feb 19 2009, 01:28 PM Post #12 |
|
Just my quick opinion, Duke is trying to push the date they expected to be sued into 2007. The insurance company wants it in 2006. I'm hoping the March 30, 2006 date of notifying the insurance company holds. |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Feb 19 2009, 10:47 PM Post #13 |
|
The period of performance for the 2007 policy ran from December 4, 2006 to December 4, 2007. Therefore, it seems reasonable that Duke would claim that they had no reason to expect lawsuits from the players (as opposed to a lawsuit from Coach Mike Pressler, who was fired in April 2006) before the mid-December defense motions, the DNA hearing, Wilson’s botched meeting with Crystal, and Nifong’s decision to drop only the rape charges. Obviously, the much publicized revelations of Mike Nifong’s misconduct led to Duke’s Jan. 3, 2007 decision to invite Reade and Collin back to Duke and opened the door for Duke’s discussion with the unindicted players in February 2007. As you suggest, it sure looks like Duke is trying to apply the $5 million 2006 policy limit to the Pressler action and the $10M million 2007 policy limit to the players’ actions. One question has been bugging me since your comment last summer on the size of the bathroom. Does the bathroom door open inward or out into the hallway? If the door opens inward, could you put four people in the room and close the door? Such a fact should have been readily apparent to the investigators on March 16 when they served the search warrant and collected physical evidence from the bathroom. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 19 2009, 10:52 PM Post #14 |
|
I have wondered about that also--how they would get the door shut again once they had all crowded in. And, I can't recall ever seeing a bathroom door which opened outwards; in my experience, they have always opened inwards. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 19 2009, 10:53 PM Post #15 |
|
Now that Nifong has apparenlty punted and decided not to appeal his bankruptcy, what remains before Judge Beaty renders his decisions? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







7:36 PM Jul 10