FC: the actual indemnity language in the Freeh contract

[simons96]

the fake lawyers are missing an important point of contract law in PA, I just wanted to spell it out.

because it is really the heart of Spanier's case, and why Freeh AND the BoT/SITF are likely in deep doo doo.

it is on Page 6 (third paragraph of section 7)

under PA contract law, proof of fraud or gross negligence can invalidate the indemnity clause of a contract, which can vary from state to state. NY state is considered to have one of the more strict definitions of "gross negligence" (Sommer v Federal Signal Corp) which states:

"it is conduct that evinces a reckless indifference to the rights of others, smacking if intentional wrongdoing"

perhaps the more relevant case to Spanier's complaint is Ruzzi v Butler Petroleum Co., where a blanket indemnity clause (as written in the engagement letter for Freeh) "would not be enforced to allow for indemnity of an indemnitee's own negligence."

in layman's language, the defenders of the BoT don't have a legal leg to stand on.

this will get bloody

 

[canuckhal]

Personally, I think a cheque will be written and it will go away. I would bet the offense play by Spanier is to hasten a settlement.

 

[lionlurker]

Eh, I doubt that Freeh can/will settle before the trials are completed.

Which means at the rate we are going, his grandchildren will be pushing up daisies before that happens.

 

[canuckhal]

Re: Eh, I doubt that Freeh can/will settle before the trials are completed.

I'm banking on a settlement similar to Corman's. PSU pays up, takes down the website, says something about Freeh Report, maybe there is an apology. Spanier rides off in the sunset and tries to reclaim his reputation. I don't think PSU and Freeh fight this and don't think Spanier has the resources or will to continue on. Hopefully, I'm wrong because think most of us would like to see how this would play out. It is the Paternos who will play for broke.

 

[91Joe95]

I don't see a settlement until after depos and discovery.

Spanier's too smart to not maximize his leverage.

 

[VaNtyLion]

A check is not going to restore Spanier's reputation...

The Freeh Report itself needs to be put on trial and proven in due process to be the hunk of garbage that anyone who has read it and compared it to actual fact knows it to be.

Only then can Spanier (or any of the others) be made close to whole. A check is nice given lost wages but Spanier probably doesn't need the money all that bad.

 

[dwiz]

Spanier is still making a half million a year via his tenureship, is he not

?* nm

 

[canuckhal]

Re: A check is not going to restore Spanier's reputation...

Not sure he can reclaim his reputation, but maybe will be able to get consulting contracts. I'm suspicious of timing if this tidbit from ESPN is true. Hasn't Lord been providing some funding for Spanier? I don't think Spanier's pockets are deep, but it does seem calculated.

His lawyers accuse several PSU trustees of falsely telling members of the media and the public that Spanier had been fired when he and the university signed a termination agreement that allowed him to keep an array of benefits, including a tenured professorship, which Locke said he still has, though the university is in the process of attempting to revoke it. (emphasis added)

There is also this: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/07/graham_spanier_is_weathering_c.html

I think what he's doing is he's waiting his turn… to hopefully someday move from playing defense to playing offense," said Al Lord, retired CEO of the student loan giant Sallie Mae and a Spanier confidant.

ESPN

 

[PennSt8er]

Spanier has deep resources

There are many who are helping this cause. Hell, you could crowd fund it. Plus the attys may be on contingency here. The payout will be very very very big.

 

[bjf1984]

Hey.....don't rag on the "fake lawyers"......


Our good friend CDW has a more impressive track record than any "tout service" in history.

When he comes out with his prognostications, you know you have a sure winner.......just bet against him and you are going to win at least 99 out of 100.

[/URL]

 

[9fold]

Re: Eh, I doubt that Freeh can/will settle before the trials are completed.

Originally posted by canuckhal:
I'm banking on a settlement similar to Corman's. PSU pays up, takes down the website, says something about Freeh Report, maybe there is an apology. Spanier rides off in the sunset and tries to reclaim his reputation. I don't think PSU and Freeh fight this and don't think Spanier has the resources or will to continue on. Hopefully, I'm wrong because think most of us would like to see how this would play out. It is the Paternos who will play for broke.

If Al Lord is still paying Spanier's legal fees, then I wouldn't worry about available resources.

 

[canuckhal]

It is strange

You have a longtime serving, well respected President suing the University and BOT. You have a longtime, well respected football coach, who donated millions to PSU, estate's suing the University. And you have Rodney Erickson's name on a building.

 

[CDW3333]

You may be correct regarding the Ruzzi case.

That's why I wrote in the other threead (at 7:59) "Looking at the indemnity agreement, however, there are other someother issues that might make it unenforcable."

 

[Pardlion]

Re: You may be correct regarding the Ruzzi case.

Originally posted by CDW3333:
That's why I wrote in the other threead (at 7:59) "Looking at the indemnity agreement, however, there are other someother issues that might make it unenforcable."

A totally useless statement as usual. But, let me suggest that you should qualify all of your opinions with blanket qualifiers like that, and then you will at least have plausible deniability when you inevitably turn out to be wrong.

 

[simons96]

Re: You may be correct regarding the Ruzzi case.

Originally posted by Pardlion:

Originally posted by CDW3333:
That's why I wrote in the other threead (at 7:59) "Looking at the indemnity agreement, however, there are other someother issues that might make it unenforcable."

A totally useless statement as usual. But, let me suggest that you should qualify all of your opinions with blanket qualifiers like that, and then you will at least have plausible deniability when you inevitably turn out to be wrong.

stunning lack of specificity in CDW's post, as usual

for a blowhard know it all lawyer who is constantly wrong, this is not surprising