PonyFans.com

let the Depositions under oath begin

Remember last week when I said that those Baylor officials should not discuss Briles role in the Baylor scandal with Houston Coaching search?

Re: Interesting Tilman Fertitta comments re: Art Briles
by Stallion » Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:21 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if those Baylor Trustees and former employees back off of any employment advice to UH. They are buying an unnecessary defamation case by Briles or a negligence action by UH if they accept the duty to provide a reference but do not fully disclose the facts. I'd advise them not to speak with UH. They will probably be getting a call from their attorney today


https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/c ... d9e4a560b8

Why do I have a feeling that is going to get a whole lot uglier.

I can't imagine a greater confederacy of dunces than UH and Baylor trustees getting together and talking about Briles.

Stallion, like you, my first thought was to get Briles's depo scheduled as quickly as possible. But then, I thought that if I was Baylor, that would create the kind of record Baylor has been so careful to avoid creating. So, they may not.

I am surprised there is not a breach of contract claim. I presumed there was a non-disparagement clause in the separation agreement between Baylor and Briles. I guess there is not.

Obviously, this was timed to do the maximum damage to Baylor as it deflects attention from the coaching hire. Briles is a real jerk. He also doesn't realize that now there is a new coach, lots of fans will turn on him. I think he is done.

They all carry insurance as university board members. This is easy money. There will be a quick 1 million dollar settlement.

If it was me, I wouldn't settle anything if it had a non-disclosure agreement attached to it. I would publish the depositions I got from Ramsower and any other school official I got. My revenge would be burning Baylor down behind me.

Yet another reason to hire a lawyer, and let him/her do your talking.

In addition, I rather think Briles will not be taking an NCAA job after this legal go-around. No college will want to talk to a coach that is legally radioactive.

Watch for the Baylor assistants to become radioactive, too.

This could really back fire on Briles. Do you really want to make sure a bunch of people are out there being paid to find proof you knew about these assaults? And have testimony to that effect on the record?

I get that he is pissed but this seems ill advised.

gostangs wrote:They all carry insurance as university board members. This is easy money. There will be a quick 1 million dollar settlement.

Still has to be covered event, not automatic. It is why Baylor has had coverage attorneys for awhile looking for possible avenues to pay all the hush settlements, and try to come up with all the money they need to keep this as quiet as possible. Some of the people already paid have confidentiality provisions which makes trying to take their depo interesting.

Briles does need to be careful what he's asking for as I'm sure there were terms when he was paid and resigned that may come into play, plus his son and son-in-law could get implicated for their involvement.

peruna81 wrote: Watch for the Baylor assistants to become radioactive, too.

If I were Baylor, and I really wanted to be a hard @$$, I would consider taking the depo of Briles' kid and son and law while they are still employed. Like the next 2 weeks. Briles doesn't want that. He really, really doesn't want that.

Bottom line is the timing of this suit was to do the maximum damage to Baylor. I'd return fire.

@si_ncaafb
Art Briles faces an uphill battle, but his lawsuit could still be problematic for Baylor, says @McCannSportsLaw


http://www.si.com/college-football/2016 ... twitter_si

gostangs wrote:They all carry insurance as university board members. This is easy money. There will be a quick 1 million dollar settlement.

Sorry. I can tell you that there is likely to be an ugly coverage fight. Since I don't have access to any of the actual policies, I must speculate and expect to see disputes:
1) Baylor's GL carrier, EPL carrier, and D&O carrier may dispute which (if any policy) provides coverage for Briles' new lawsuit. In addition, some of the individual defendants may have other insurance available (umbrella coverage) that could complicate things.
2) Some policies will have Bodily Injury/Slander/Libel Exclusions
3) Almost all policies have exclusions for "intentional acts."

Critically, I expect that the carriers (GL, EPL, D&O, etc) will argue that this lawsuit "relates back" to prior claims under expired insurance policies. While that won't get the carries off the hook, I suspect that at least some policies might "exhaust" before Briles' case is resolved.

The Penn State situation illustrates the kind of things likely to come up as this case moves forward.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/ ... 273752.htm
https://www.law360.com/insurance/articl ... -knowledge

Bottom Line: I expect Baylor will resolve the Briles case before courts resolve what, if any, coverage it has available to it.

SMU Football Blog wrote:If I were Baylor, and I really wanted to be a hard @$$, I would consider taking the depo of Briles' kid and son and law while they are still employed. Like the next 2 weeks. Briles doesn't want that. He really, really doesn't want that.

Bottom line is the timing of this suit was to do the maximum damage to Baylor. I'd return fire.

I doubt Baylor wants anyone deposed.

insurance companies will likely represent them though initially under reservation of rights-but insurance companies sometimes are looking to screw their client harder than they are defending the lawsuit

also this lawsuit relates to whether the Baylor principles defamed or tortuously interfered with Briles chances of future employment-won't really be about the criminal intentional sexual assault conduct at Baylor which would be filed by victims not Briles.

But wouldn't Baylor's defense at least partially rest on what Briles knew or didn't know - which requires the entire issue to be brought to light publicly? That seems to be what Baylor is not wanting to happen, since every step is to avoid that (i.e. tell us what the hamilton report says - but don't send us a copy).