Celtic are poised to pay multimillion-pound damages within months after agreeing to settle legal claims over systematic child abuse

[Govanfront]

Every time we play this evil organisation I hope we have a banner on display for them “Paedophile Cover Up !”
Would happily pay towards the lads funding one.
They should forever be reminded about this, they are trying to make it go away with hush money.
Evil.

I don’t disagree with you but the SPFL would order a cover up this is the stance they and many others have taken from the start.
Maybe something more subtle that gets viewers unaware initially of the meaning then ask questions on the banner.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

The insurance thing should not be a factor. Employers are covered for the actions of employees, but only if they act immediately, mitigate costs and ensure that the correct procedures are followed. At the most the scum will be able to claim for the first incidence they became aware of, with all further incidences falling foul of their failure to mitigate. Re-hiring a known child molester will make it difficult to prove to their insurer that they took all reasonable steps to prevent further loss.

 

[TheGarageFlower]

I struggle to understand why insurance would cover it after they have publicly said, on several occasions that the boy's club were nothing to do with them.

 

[i Will Maintain]

Two Internal investigations by their club that found nothing , no case to answer , They even had the audacity to claim the claims were scurrilous. They never at any stage , interviewed , or spoke to any of the victims in their investigations. and every one of the directors to a man , denied the connection between the club and the boys club , and probably still do to this day. No apologies to any of the victims or their families , blanked by the club.And our Government and Football Authorities have washed their hands of it throughout the whole duration. Will we hear Patrick Harvie demanding the club be shut down . ?..or will Humza Yousef condemn his favourite club publicly for their inexcusable defence in worsening the lives of the victims ?...Will Shifty McGifty or Michael Mulraney or anybody act accordingly with sanctions. ? Don't hold your breath.

Exactly!
CFC have footered about this for years and denied any responsibility for their own boys club several times and even had the audacity to claim Andrew Gray never even played for them(despite a photo showing Andrew in his CBC blazer and tie standing with Jack McGinn.

Any notion of them "doing the right thing morally" is utter BS

 

[Big Negri]

I'll never understand how parents can take children to that place. It sends a shiver up my spine, tbh.

If there was no cover up, I don’t think most of their future first team signings would have went near there either.

 

[the ginslinger]

They have cheated in a financial and sporting sense since the 60s.

 

[GourockBlue50]

Once it's settled, there will most likely be clauses that it can't be reopened in another country that they'd all have agreed to as part of the settlement.

In terms of other victims coming forward afterwards, I'd have expected they've investigated fully to make sure all victims were represented.

NDAs are common in these cases, the same goes for the total settlements paid out (and individually) remaining confidential from the public.

It's guesswork what the individual figures would be, I'd reckon at least a million each. I wouldn't be surprised if that figure hasn't been reached already and is going thru the final stages of the agreements.

It's disgusting as if it went to trial I reckon they'd have taken the fkrs to the cleaners, but at the same time none of us have had to go thru what they did and the stress of a long, drawn out, public legal action must be a nightmare on top of what they've gone thru already. They'll most likely want it finished with and out of the public spotlight.

What's disgusting, is this only seems to be reported by one outlet, while at the same time, others are focusing on a bottle being thrown and some even discussing them paying 7.5 million for a keeper. You couldn't make the last one up. Appalling.

What are your thoughts on American lawyers/authorities becoming involved?

There may also be other countries involved as well.

 

[Cambuslangger]

What are your thoughts on American lawyers/authorities becoming involved?

There may also be other countries involved as well.

I can’t see that happening unless American children were victims. If it was only current CBC players that were abused on foreign soil then I don’t know why American lawyers would get involved. Or am I missing something?

 

[Hateley's Mullet]

Exactly!
CFC have footered about this for years and denied any responsibility for their own boys club several times and even had the audacity to claim Andrew Gray never even played for them(despite a photo showing Andrew in his CBC blazer and tie standing with Jack McGinn.

Any notion of them "doing the right thing morally" is utter BS

Isn't there footage of him actually coming on as a sub for them?

 

[foreverrfc]

Don't know if I'm posting in the right thread but I've noticed this morning that all reference to the filth and their disgusting deeds has disappeared from BBC news and sports sites.
I can't get my head around that legal companies are obviously prepared to accept their coin and do their dirty work for them.
God will win.

 

[GourockBlue50]

I can’t see that happening unless American children were victims. If it was only current CBC players that were abused on foreign soil then I don’t know why American lawyers would get involved. Or am I missing something?

I don't think you are missing anything. I was just wondering if the fact that the crimes were committed on American soil it would mean the authorities would be looking to convict the guilty for the assaults or the possibility that they were trafficked to commit these crimes.

As happened here the lawyers lawyers may be looking for pay outs similar to what is about to happen here.

 

[captcaveman]

I can’t see that happening unless American children were victims. If it was only current CBC players that were abused on foreign soil then I don’t know why American lawyers would get involved. Or am I missing something?

This is from the Scottish Express 2023

American prosecutors urge Celtic Boys Club victims to come forward as tour sparks investigation​

It is claimed Frank Cairney targeted one boy on a trip to New Jersey in 1991 with 'at least' five other players targeted over 20 years


Prosecutors in the USA want victims of Celtic Boys Club paedophile Frank Cairney to come forward in relation to potential abuse that took place on a tour in the country. Officers in New Jersey are investigating claims of abuse dating from over 20 years

It is understood "at least" five boys were abused on trips abroad, including a local boy. We previously reported that lawyers were keeping an eye on events in Scotland, where a 'class-action' suit is being taken against Celtic by a number of former players abused during their time at the boys club.


Earlier this year, a sheriff determined that Cairney had indecently assaulted three young players after a three-day hearing after the sex offender was judged to be unfit for trial. He had already served a three-year sentence handed down in 2019 for abusing seven other boys club starlets over 20 years.

The Daily Record reports that the call from prosecutors comes after a probe into abuse claims stretching from the 1970s to the 1990s. It is claimed Cairney attacked a teen on a 1991 summer tour.

A source said: "At least five boys are said to have been abused on trips to the town of Kearny, New Jersey, between the 70s and 90s. Three players are thought to have been abused during one trip, another teen was allegedly abused a few years later, and there are claims a local boy was preyed on.

"Only one incident was reported to New Jersey police and – due to the passage of time, the little information they had and the fact it involved people from Scotland – it wasn’t easy to investigate fully. But they take all sex offence reports very seriously. That’s why they’re urging any victims to come forward."

Despite being deemed unfit for trial earlier this year, Cairney has been spotted attending church and going shopping by himself. We reported that taxi drivers operating in his hometown of Uddingston in South Lanarkshire are refusing to let him in their cabs.

We previously told that survivors believe if their action against Celtic in Scotland is successful, it could open the door to a similar case in the States. One victim, Gordon Woods, said: "This is the first class action to take place, if Thompsons are successful, and I have every confidence they will be, I'm quite sure other solicitors will fall in place and launch their own actions.

"We are well aware of victims in America in New Jersey, for example." The Scottish champions have claimed the boys club was not connected with the senior side but victims claim the two were intrinsically linked.

 

[skorn]

If there was no cover up, I don’t think most of their future first team signings would have went near there either.

I'm really hoping that our best bloggers and social media fans are already lining up contact details of ex-CFC players, to ask them this very question:
"Knowing what you do now about CFC covering up paedophile abuse, would you still have joined that Club, to be associated with all that ?"

If they reply "Yes" then get it posted far and wide, ask them continuously if they support paedophile rapists.

If enough "big name" CFC players state that they wouldn't have joined CFC if they'd known about this, then the next question to be asked of the footballing authorities is:
"Would CFC have been as successful without tricking these players into joining them ?"

 

[TerryMunro]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777679924620321246

1.1million viewers yet the Scottish media and football authorities would want you to believe that this is a nothing event.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

My

This is what was reported in the Bennell/Man City case

Manchester City payouts to Barry Bennell victims to cost millions

Manchester City's payouts to survivors of sexual abuse are likely to range from £15,000 to £100,000 after the club decided to launch a redress compensation scheme for victims of Barry Bennell.

www.dailymail.co.uk

My understanding is that the vicarious liability was lost in the Bennell case because he was not employed by the club.
Also a time bar to bring the case.

That certainly is not the case with Celtic FC as certainly some of the abusers were employed by Celtic FC and the time bar barrier is now a non issue as has been waived.


The pay outs by Man City of up to 100k per victim were a voluntary scheme set up by Man City and not part of the court proceedings.

It seems to me that in the instance of Celtic that the Public Liability Insurance could come into play but as yet there is no admittance of guilt and equally not proven in court.
I imagine the insurance company would look for these to be satisfied before considering a payout under the policy.

I stress purely my opinion as a layman.

 

[captcaveman]

Can I ask everyone that has social media to retweet and share the Times articles and the comments from Russell Findlay that Celtic should make a full public apology and ask all your followers to also share the articles

 

[Brother Crockett]

I can’t see that happening unless American children were victims. If it was only current CBC players that were abused on foreign soil then I don’t know why American lawyers would get involved. Or am I missing something?

Trafficking?

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

Yeah. And Jeffrey Dahmer insured himself for up to 12 serial killings per annum.

I'd be gobsmacked if illegal activity / criminality was covered.

Would that not be the point of any organisation taking out insurance to protect themselves as an organisation from the actions of employees illegal or otherwise which could lead to them being culpable in terms of compensation to victim.

A hypothetical example would be say a bus driver under the influence of alcohol involved in an accident where injuries occurred.
I doubt the bus company would stump up but would fall to insurance for settlement.

Just my opinion.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

Think that ship has sailed for most people who are not aligned to celtic.

Paying money to victims is a clear admission of Celtic's guilt in most people's eyes, although I have no doubt they will try to muddy the waters.

It would be interesting to know of the outcome of discussions between any insurance company and Celtic football club but that information will likely be kept internal to the club, and I would not trust any output from the spin masters.

I agree that paying out

Think that ship has sailed for most people who are not aligned to celtic.

Paying money to victims is a clear admission of Celtic's guilt in most people's eyes, although I have no doubt they will try to muddy the waters.

It would be interesting to know of the outcome of discussions between any insurance company and Celtic football club but that information will likely be kept internal to the club, and I would not trust any output from the spin masters.

The point of payment to victims without accepting liability is not in law an admittance of guilt.
To the layperson yup I agree with you that it is but there is a distinction between both.
The reason they are trying to pay compensation without admitting liability is to protect Brand Celtic.
Sponsorship would go down the tubes as no reputable big company would want to be associated with a club found guilty where children have been abused.

You are bang on we will never publicly be told who is paying the compensation.

 

[RobGer]

I agree that paying out

The point of payment to victims without accepting liability is not in law an admittance of guilt.
To the layperson yup I agree with you that it is but there is a distinction between both.
The reason they are trying to pay compensation without admitting liability is to protect Brand Celtic.
Sponsorship would go down the tubes as no reputable big company would want to be associated with a club found guilty where children have been abused.

You are bang on we will never publicly be told who is paying the compensation.

Let's hope most of the public see this as similar to the £12m Prince Andrew handed out with no admittance of guilt. What's the chance of a BBC drama about how C3ltic handled this and how this came about? Yes I know unfortunately none.

 

[Chillybear]

I can’t see that happening unless American children were victims. If it was only current CBC players that were abused on foreign soil then I don’t know why American lawyers would get involved. Or am I missing something?

The crime happened in the US so it's in their jurisdiction.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

Doubt insurance will cover anything if inappropriate precautions were in place.

Would your motor insurer pay out if your car was stolen with the keys in the ignition and you asleep in your bed?

Completely different situation as negligence by the policy holder personally.

In the case of Celtic FC boys club it is the actions of third parties which Celtic have mitigated against by taking out Public Liability Insurance to prevent actions such as employees negligence/wrongful doing of a criminal nature costing the club directly.
They pay an insurance premium for situations like that.
I imagine the insurance company may try to wriggle out of payment but that’s a different matter.

 

[Hateley's Mullet]

Would that not be the point of any organisation taking out insurance to protect themselves as an organisation from the actions of employees illegal or otherwise which could lead to them being culpable in terms of compensation to victim.

A hypothetical example would be say a bus driver under the influence of alcohol involved in an accident where injuries occurred.
I doubt the bus company would stump up but would fall to insurance for settlement.

Just my opinion.

Not if the driver had been sacked by the company for drunk driving in the past, and then reemployed!

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

Let's hope most of the public see this as similar to the £12m Prince Andrew handed out with no admittance of guilt. What's the chance of a BBC drama about how C3ltic handled this and how this came about? Yes I know unfortunately none.

If a matter of interest some TV company will instigate a documentary on the abuse carried out in Celtic FC’s name.
There is a precedent for this where it was done with Barry Bennell in England.
The Celtic situation is worse with the number of abusers and inference that their board was aware of abuse subsequent inaction and alleged collusion with members of their board(Trophy Centre).
There is also a political element to the story with the SNP inaction and subsequent whitewash.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

Not if the driver had been sacked by the company for drunk driving in the past, and then reemployed!

Yup but the current situation is none of these facts have emerged regarding abusers being re employed and this would only come out at court.

The Public Liability insurance company would have to repudiate the Celtic claim first and have a legal basis for doing so.

There is not even an admission of guilt in law by Celtic regardless of what people infer about them making settlement in that regard.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

Don't know if I'm posting in the right thread but I've noticed this morning that all reference to the filth and their disgusting deeds has disappeared from BBC news and sports sites.
I can't get my head around that legal companies are obviously prepared to accept their coin and do their dirty work for them.
God will win.

Still on the Glasgow & West page and still on the Scottish Football page - but not the lead Scotland page mate:

Celtic Boys Club sex abuse cases could settle for millions

Solicitors say "significant progress" has been made in valuing cases since the club indicated it would settle.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

Yes still no mention from SMSM, this puts me in mind of our dark days, Craig Houston managed to get the damming internet message, Roddy Forsyth of the Telegraph published it and the shit hit the fan! Nothing at all came from TV, Radio, Papers for three days before Puff pieces came out and play down, then nothing. We are infested with SMSM which play down anything that shows the depths a Scum Club have gone to deny their part, whilst anything to do with our Club can only be negativity, even when English show the Truth, they are worse than Sum.

They are willing to pay as it benefits Celtic. It keeps them out the dock and makes most of this disappear for what is likely to be quite a paltry sum in the grand scheme of things. I see suggestions of £2m - £3m ( not per person but for the whole pool of poor folk they interfered with) That's a small price to pay for the noise to go away.

Celtic will walk away from this and be held up as some sort of moral guardians. A club who despite no liability done the right thing to help the victims of a separate entity.

I hope those estimates are way off.
I hope those who were affected get some peace and closure.

We always knew deep down they would weasel their way out of this without a single football sanction.

Some didn’t say nothing, some of them denied it or rubbished the claims

Like Tommy Burns.

 

[jweebear]

I doubt any Public Liability Insurance provider would allow Celtic, agreeing to payouts to abused victims, even if it is not an admittance of guit without being first found liable. Which in that case the PL company wouldn't pay out anyway for historical non disclosures issues imo. My feeling is that celtic are on their own in this Class Action, but this class action won't be the last action as more will come forward. This isn't the end of it for them for actions, nor even the end of the begining of the actions, but more the end of them.

 

[Moreloslaces]

Celtic wont be out of pocket, its their insurance company that'll be paying the victims.

 

[ForGodForCountryForever]

Celtic wont be out of pocket, its their insurance company that'll be paying the victims.

This is true but like all large insurance pay-outs youd fancy itll have an impact on future policy purchases.

Who'd want to insure an organisation like that?

 

[D4RN-L]

This is true but like all large insurance pay-outs youd fancy itll have an impact on future policy purchases.

Who'd want to insure an organisation like that?

I really can't see their insurance company paying our for this form of case especially given the details and the 'separate entity'.
I also can't see it being a total of more than £6M

 

[PaisleyBlueBear]

Celtic wont be out of pocket, its their insurance company that'll be paying the victims.

You think so ? so when did criminality become insurable?

i really wish people wouldnt make up stuff they have not got a clue about

 

[Moreloslaces]

You think so ? so when did criminality become insurable?

i really wish people wouldnt make up stuff they have not got a clue about

maybe if you read a couple of articles about sporting institutions & insurance you'd maybe not look so stupid.

just 1 example from 1 page.

Examples of organisations that can be pursued include:

• Religious organisations
• Charitable organisations
• Local authorities
• Care homes
• Schools
• Community groups e.g. The Scout Association
• Ministry of Defence

Most employers and organisations have insurance which means that if you are successful, compensation will be paid by their insurance company.

Compensation for child abuse | historic child abuse

Advice and first steps for anyone seeking compensation for child abuse.

www.emmottsnell.co.uk

There's plenty more articles that you could clue yourself up on. just takes a wee search and some actual reading.

 

[captcaveman]

Celtic wont be out of pocket, its their insurance company that'll be paying the victims.

Hope you don't mind me asking this but, Celtic clearly having been upfront with their insurers about everything that happened and what they knew about the employment status of those arrested and convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse and the countless allegations against them as Celtic continued to deny they were employees of Celtic. They as a club must be up there as the worse or one of the worse for this in British football.

How would an Insurer deal with a claim by a company/Celtic who haven't been truthful with the Insurer? Doesnt not being upfront and honest with the Insurer make their claim to pay out compo null and void? I know just from any Insurance I have had it always states that you have to be truthful and inform the Insurers of all information

 

[Moreloslaces]

Hope you don't mind me asking this but, Celtic clearly having been upfront with their insurers about everything that happened and what they knew about the employment status of those arrested and convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse and the countless allegations against them as Celtic continued to deny they were employees of Celtic. They as a club must be up there as the worse or one of the worse for this in British football.

How would an Insurer deal with a claim by a company/Celtic who haven't been truthful with the Insurer? Doesnt not being upfront and honest with the Insurer make their claim to pay out compo null and void?

you would think so, but there will be various clauses in any insurance docs that would deal with this. we don't know what they say or whats included with a policy like that. i guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Johnny The Fox]

you would think so, but there will be various clauses in any insurance docs that would deal with this. we don't know what they say or whats included with a policy like that. i guess we'll find out soon enough.

The real damage to Celtic will be to their reputation and that's what worries them more than the money. Imagine the damage something like a Netflix documentary could lead to. No advertiser's would touch them with a barge pole

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

maybe if you read a couple of articles about sporting institutions & insurance you'd maybe not look so stupid.

just 1 example from 1 page.

Examples of organisations that can be pursued include:

• Religious organisations
• Charitable organisations
• Local authorities
• Care homes
• Schools
• Community groups e.g. The Scout Association
• Ministry of Defence

Most employers and organisations have insurance which means that if you are successful, compensation will be paid by their insurance company.

Compensation for child abuse | historic child abuse

Advice and first steps for anyone seeking compensation for child abuse.

www.emmottsnell.co.uk

There's plenty more articles that you could clue yourself up on. just takes a wee search and some actual reading.

A little stone throwy there, particularly as you are not really grasping the full picture.

Insurance, any insurance, covers you up to the point where you became aware of a problem and ONLY covers you beyond that point if you take appropriate steps to mitigate against further loss. They can only possibly be insured for any of the cases that pre-date the publicly known about discovery of what was happening. The fact they subsequently rehired the molester in chief means that no policy, ever, anywhere, would cover them for anything that occurred after they became aware there was a problem.

If you had a water stain develop on your kitchen ceiling and didn't bother your arse to investigate and fix the problem, to the point where your ceiling caved in, what do you think the LoL (limit of liability) would be for the insurer? Clue; You are not getting a new ceiling off them.

The absolute most they can hope for is cover for cases that pre-date torbett and almost all policies have a policy exclusion under the heading 'failure to mitigate' which can often render the entire claim void.

 

[mitre]

Either they have been paying higher insurance premiums than Richard Hammond when it time to renew his car coverage, or insurers would be mad not to decline to cover them for historic crimes.

It's hardly an unknown that this has been on the horizon for years. Why would an insurer take them on as a client when they carry such a high likelihood of them getting rinsed for historical abuse.

I suspect their premium would come with a clause either not covering historical sex cases between. Say the 70s-90s, or it having a hard cap on the maximum insurance payout.

An insurance company isn't going to open itself up to such risks without covering it's own arse. No joke intended.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

Either they have been paying higher insurance premiums than Richard Hammond when it time to renew his car coverage, or insurers would be mad not to decline to cover them for historic crimes.

It's hardly an unknown that this has been on the horizon for years. Why would an insurer take them on as a client when they carry such a high likelihood of them getting rinsed for historical abuse.

I suspect their premium would come with a clause either not covering historical sex cases between. Say the 70s-90s, or it having a hard cap on the maximum insurance payout.

An insurance company isn't going to open itself up to such risks without covering it's own arse. No joke intended.

Which is the other issue. The inception date of their current policy may be after the date of the claims, meaning their current insurer would not be liable. It is possible to claim on old policies for historic issues, but they are a nightmare to administer and because the previous insurer is not getting any type of premium, they absolutely fight harder to avoid payment.

 

[BlueHaze]

So the Peadophiles just need to phone their insurers and say we’ve got a wee problem here,Some people are claiming money off us for something we knew about but we just ignored it hoping it would go away so just come to a deal with them and pay up,Sorted.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

A little stone throwy there, particularly as you are not really grasping the full picture.

Insurance, any insurance, covers you up to the point where you became aware of a problem and ONLY covers you beyond that point if you take appropriate steps to mitigate against further loss. They can only possibly be insured for any of the cases that pre-date the publicly known about discovery of what was happening. The fact they subsequently rehired the molester in chief means that no policy, ever, anywhere, would cover them for anything that occurred after they became aware there was a problem.

If you had a water stain develop on your kitchen ceiling and didn't bother your arse to investigate and fix the problem, to the point where your ceiling caved in, what do you think the LoL (limit of liability) would be for the insurer? Clue; You are not getting a new ceiling off them.

The absolute most they can hope for is cover for cases that pre-date torbett and almost all policies have a policy exclusion under the heading 'failure to mitigate' which can often render the entire claim void.

I know a little about Public Liability Insurance which basically is an insurance policy to cover organisations against the consequences of wrongdoing by the club/employees.
Even criminal.
The insurance would be in place pre dating any abuse of children so would be active.

I have no doubt Celtic in conjunction with the insurer have been working on a strategy to avert responsibility and liability.
To date this has been exclusively Separate Entity of which the insurer will be aware.
This defence is no longer tenable which is why Celtic/Insurer are going into action to restrict the amount of compensation to be paid with victims without admitting liability.

None of this been played out in court nor any of the issues surrounding re employing abusers.
The insurance company may well be aware of this fact which may well be a reason they want to settle now as it would be cheaper than going to court.
If that scenario occurred all the distasteful details would emerge including re employing perpetrators of abuse.
Damage to brand Celtic huge.
Celtic FC and Insurer will almost certainly be working together.

 

[i Will Maintain]

I know a little about Public Liability Insurance which basically is an insurance policy to cover organisations against the consequences of wrongdoing by the club/employees.
Even criminal.
The insurance would be in place pre dating any abuse of children so would be active.

I have no doubt Celtic in conjunction with the insurer have been working on a strategy to avert responsibility and liability.
To date this has been exclusively Separate Entity of which the insurer will be aware.
This defence is no longer tenable which is why Celtic/Insurer are going into action to restrict the amount of compensation to be paid with victims without admitting liability.

None of this been played out in court nor any of the issues surrounding re employing abusers.
The insurance company may well be aware of this fact which may well be a reason they want to settle now as it would be cheaper than going to court.
If that scenario occurred all the distasteful details would emerge including re employing perpetrators of abuse.
Damage to brand Celtic huge.
Celtic FC and Insurer will almost certainly be working together.

The "seperate entity" lie was immediately blown out of the water by Spotlight. Everyone knew it was one big shamelul untruth.


Tbh and without tying to be crude Thompsons literally have Celtic by the balls here and they know it.
The evidence collected by Spotlight and others was factual accurate and pretty damning and the irony that most of it came from their own club magazine. .
They have nowhere else to run.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

The "seperate entity" lie was immediately blown out of the water by Spotlight. Everyone knew it was one big shamelul untruth.


Tbh and without tying to be crude Thompsons literally have Celtic by the balls here and they know it.
The evidence collected by Spotlight and others was factual accurate and pretty damning and the irony that most of it came from their own club magazine. .
They have nowhere else to run.

And that’s now why they/insurance want to settle for the least possible amount and minimal damage to brand Celtic.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

I know a little about Public Liability Insurance which basically is an insurance policy to cover organisations against the consequences of wrongdoing by the club/employees.
Even criminal.
The insurance would be in place pre dating any abuse of children so would be active.

I have no doubt Celtic in conjunction with the insurer have been working on a strategy to avert responsibility and liability.
To date this has been exclusively Separate Entity of which the insurer will be aware.
This defence is no longer tenable which is why Celtic/Insurer are going into action to restrict the amount of compensation to be paid with victims without admitting liability.

None of this been played out in court nor any of the issues surrounding re employing abusers.
The insurance company may well be aware of this fact which may well be a reason they want to settle now as it would be cheaper than going to court.
If that scenario occurred all the distasteful details would emerge including re employing perpetrators of abuse.
Damage to brand Celtic huge.
Celtic FC and Insurer will almost certainly be working together.

I literally work in insurance settling claims, or making the decision to decline them. The scum knew what was happening and then re employed the ringleader. No insurer, anywhere, will cover any claim from after Torbett was rehired and the vast majority will look to decline any claim from before because the scum failed in their contractual obligation to mitigate any loss. There is no debate over this, it is simple and clear fact.

 

[Biniaro11]

My

My understanding is that the vicarious liability was lost in the Bennell case because he was not employed by the club.
Also a time bar to bring the case.

That certainly is not the case with Celtic FC as certainly some of the abusers were employed by Celtic FC and the time bar barrier is now a non issue as has been waived.


The pay outs by Man City of up to 100k per victim were a voluntary scheme set up by Man City and not part of the court proceedings.

It seems to me that in the instance of Celtic that the Public Liability Insurance could come into play but as yet there is no admittance of guilt and equally not proven in court.
I imagine the insurance company would look for these to be satisfied before considering a payout under the policy.

I stress purely my opinion as a layman.

I can’t see any payout that is agreed with the victims being considerably lower than the amounts being talked about on here.
They deserve a proper apology and the chance to finally move on.

 

[Grumpy Old Git]

I literally work in insurance settling claims, or making the decision to decline them. The scum knew what was happening and then re employed the ringleader. No insurer, anywhere, will cover any claim from after Torbett was rehired and the vast majority will look to decline any claim from before because the scum failed in their contractual obligation to mitigate any loss. There is no debate over this, it is simple and clear fact.

I bow to your superior in house knowledge.
Would you agree the club and insurer will be working in conjunction with each other to agree a strategy to deflect the claim.?
Basically separate entity nonsense.

Do you believe Public Liability Insurance would originally cover the claim or at least some aspects of the claim?

Could you explain the bit where you mention decline any claim from before the scum failed in their contractual obligation to mitigate the loss as relates to this situation.?

 

[i Will Maintain]

And that’s now why they/insurance want to settle for the least possible amount and minimal damage to brand Celtic.

A sharp squeeze of said balls will have the desired effect.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

The insurer will be limiting their liability at all times, it is their job. They will be in no way interested in any secondary issues the policy holder may face and will seek to discharge their legal responsibility in the most cost efficient manner possible.

Employers public liability may cover compensation for any victims up to the point the scum knew about the pederasts operating out of their club. That’s what the insurance is for and as distasteful as it is, their policy would ordinarily cover them for the costs. As soon as a problem became apparent, however, they were obligated to inform their insurer and to take any reasonable steps to prevent further loss. Nobody could argue that re employing a known child molester was mitigating against it happening again.

To answer the specific question you asked: any policy holder has a contract with the insurer and that contract by default contains a requirement to mitigate further loss. By failing to even report it to the insurer, assuming they did not, they broke their contract. Further, it would be argued that had it been dealt with as soon as it happened and in the correct manner, the costs they face today would have been significantly reduced, per claimant, meaning their obligation to to the insurer was further breached.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

There is a further potential complication with the idea their insurer will cover the costs in that their current insurer would need to be the same insurer as was in place when the events happened. If their current policy has an inception date after the beasts carried out their horrific attacks, their current insurer has no liability at all and they would need to claim against the insurer at the time of the ‘loss’, which given the length of time these attacks happened over, may actually be several different companies. Given previous insurers are not receiving any payments now, they have even less incentive to cover a claim and will absolutely be looking at ways to decline outright.

 

[Dennistounbear45]

Their lawyers fees must be in the tens of millions. This has been going on for years.