Insurer Says It’s Not Liable in Limp Bizkit Concert Death

August 15, 2005

  • August 16, 2005 at 9:32 am
    Stephanie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This was a rock concert, not a tea-sipping afternoon at the club!

    Insurance Co’s must be responsible for providing the protections their policies state they will, but the amount of litigation today is driving the cost of insurance.

  • August 16, 2005 at 10:26 am
    JSW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My guess is that the insurance company is claiming it is not liable to defend and indemnify the defendants under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. I don’t think the issue is whether the insurance company is being blamed for the death while other parties go unpunished. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t answer the question why the insurer believes it is not “liable.” We should try to get a full understanding of the facts before we rush to blame the insurance company.

  • August 16, 2005 at 12:15 pm
    Umpire says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If we’re in the business, we should already know this… but as a reminder, people buy liability insurance to protect themselves, not for medical nor death benefits of themselves or their children.

    Limp Bisket, presumably, does not believe they did anything wrong, and therefore would not want to pay these death benefits. Their insurer is charged with the duty to defend them – precisely what they are doing. If the band did not do anything wrong, then they are not negligent, and should not pay.

    Certainly there is the issue of death benefits here. We should buy our own coverage on our own children. The mother should have life insurance, and health insurance. She should consider if the concert was a safe place for her daughter.

    Life is not fair – and as adults, we should know that by now. People die without there being any intention of that result. Crowds are dangerous, and we’ve had hundreds of stories well covered by the press to let us all know that – whether it be a music concert or sporting event, or even a fire in a building where panic causes this same result.

    Must we find fault in everything? Can we, as a society, not understand and accept that some of us will have something unfortunate (even to this degree) potentially happen to us?

    And will a multi-million dollar award bring back our child? Will it make the next “mob crowd” think before they mosh together and have this happen again? Will we make concerts so “safe” that they are no longer any fun to go see? Is the choas that goes with concerts not part of the “fun” that young people expect (and if you think not, you never went to a rock concert when you were young!)?

    The carrier is doing precisely what they were hired to do – defend their client. Then we, as a society, must decide whether or not the jury award will pay money “just because” someone got hurt, or because there was really some wrongdoing on the part of the defendants. The more liberal we are with that decision, the more everyone’s liability insurance will cost.

    You can argue the level of “wrongdoing” all you want – I would choose great restraint before making such an award, because I accept that “bad things” can happen. But don’t criticize this carrier for doing the very definition of the job they were hired to do! THAT’s why we buy liability coverage… to defend us, and to then indemnify us when and if the jury decides that what we did was really the cause of the harm… and then hopefully the award is based on the wrongdoing, rather than “what would be nice for the family to have” as compensation. I would not trade any of my children for 100 million… and having it would not remove my grief in the slightest degree… and I’m certain that “the crowd” at the next venue would never consider this in the least before they “stampeded” in any other event anywhere in the world!

  • August 16, 2005 at 12:18 pm
    jr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why is it that the only party that is ever responsible is the insurance companies?
    If the band member incited a stampede, how much responsibility does he have. And lets not forget the attendees that were involved in the trampling, do they have no responsibility for killing the person.
    I am sure that the policy language wil determine coverage and duties of the band and promoter to insure a safe environment.
    people also have to be held responsible for attending events like this that are known for having problems. Concert goer’s beware, you may be killed by attending this event thru no fault of anyone except the insurance carrier that was dumb enough to take premium on the risk. The sad fact is that the family will get pennies compared to the suck wad attorney

  • August 16, 2005 at 12:55 pm
    Who Concert 1979 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    …in Cincinnati where 11 fans died. Wonder how much they paid then…
    Festival seating is the pits.

    Ron Duristch–one of the many Who fans caught in the crowd–describes the horror of the hellish situation:

    “A wave swept me to the left and when I regained my stance I felt that I was standing on someone. The helplessness and frustration of this moment sent a wave of panic through me. I screamed with all my strength that I was standing on someone. I couldn’t move. I could only scream. Another wave came and pushed me further left towards the door. I felt my leg being pulled to the right. The crowd shifted again and I reached down and grabbed an arm at my leg. I struggled for awhile and finally pulled up a young girl who also had a young boy clinging to her limbs. They were barely conscious and their faces were filled with tears.”

  • August 16, 2005 at 6:48 am
    Christine says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It seems that 99% of the time insurance companies are NEVER liable for ANYTHING, and I hear Diamond is the absolute worst! What the heck do we carry insurance for then????
    Pay up Diamond!

  • August 17, 2005 at 8:00 am
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yahoo provides more information about this insurance story than does the Insurance Journal…

    “United National, however, filed a lawsuit Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court saying it shouldn’t have to cover the band’s court costs.”

    “The insurer claims that Durst’s actions provoked the incident and therefore nullified the band’s coverage. The company is seeking a court order to confirm that it does not have to indemnify the band”

    http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/eo/20050815/112415016000.html

  • August 22, 2005 at 1:34 am
    fmkeller says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    no court has made a decision yetr you must have never had a claim or are not in the insurance business. this is not a insurance claim, but a momma selling her child

  • August 22, 2005 at 2:06 am
    Joey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I imagine Fred Durst’s actions were not intended to injur anyone (I doubt he’s even inteligent enough to understand a large crowd’s power), however isn’t this why someone in his position purchases insurance? I also agree that no sum of money will replace the loss of a child.

  • August 28, 2006 at 10:50 am
    Silence says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    how can you judge a man\’s inteligence by the career he purses? take marilyn manson for example, he is such an intelegent man but people take that for granted because of the way he presents himself. i dont think its at the top of a performer\’s agender to understand a large croud\’s power, its not something i think anyone would think about before entertaining people at a concert.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*