Penn State must be guilty. $93 million paid to Jerry's victims by PSU.

[91Joe95]

The insurance companies are denying coverage on the grounds that Penn State failed to report the '98 and '01 incidents.

Otherwise, your post is gibberish.

How cute, the Freeh report is being used against PSU for 98, which was reported, and for 2001,which has no identified victim by the same insurance company which was supposedly consulted and drove the settlement process. I won't point out that is still only 2 cases out of the roughly 25 that PSU paid out, both before and after those cases. I won't even get into the hillarity of psu defending the veracity of the Freeh report in a court room setting given all their statements discrediting it and how its not being used for anything. Much like michy, you're the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[91Joe95]

You just completely confirmed away I said .particularly the last sentence in the articl



You just confirmed.what I
Was saying. Denying the claims often happens in these cases but many
Times they end up paying something.
Read the last sentence in the article by Penn State " working with the
other insurers in an effort to
obtain their constructive participation"
PMA is in this and so
Are "other insurers". That's what I said!
We call it " the path of least resistance"
And PSU wants to
Avoid more bad publicity so
Settle whether it is PSU or probably
both.
I was just trying to answer a posters question.
I am moving on to football which you can say I do not know much about unlike insurance and risk management
My last reply on this

However I did know Donavan seemed over his head?

You just completely confirmed away I said .particularly the last sentence in the articl



You just confirmed.what I
Was saying. Denying the claims often happens in these cases but many
Times they end up paying something.
Read the last sentence in the article by Penn State " working with the
other insurers in an effort to
obtain their constructive participation"
PMA is in this and so
Are "other insurers". That's what I said!
We call it " the path of least resistance"
And PSU wants to
Avoid more bad publicity so
Settle whether it is PSU or probably
both.
I was just trying to answer a posters question.
I am moving on to football which you can say I do not know much about unlike insurance and risk management
My last reply on this

However I did know Donavan seemed over his head?

No one said insurers weren't notified ahead of time. Your assertion was they were driving the settlement process when it is clear they were not. Also, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that article was after the first batch of settlements were approved. You still haven't addressed what the minimum criteria is for the insurers to reimburse PSU, nor the size of the settlements.

 

[WeR0206]

Both 1998 and 2001 were reported OUTSIDE of PSU. Someone please explain how PSU is liable but the state of PA and/or TSM arent?

Please explain why a football coach/college admins should have known better than phd's in psychology (JR in 2001) and law enforcement/CYS case workers (1998)? The state of PA didn't even indictate JS after finding out he was giving naked bear hugs from behind to two different boys in '98 and yet its all football coach/CSS's fault?? Bullshit!

The above is what one would have to believe in order for the freeh bs current narrative to be true and for PSU to have ALL liability for all victims.

JS was an Ex employee after 1999 for crying out loud. Both incidents PSU was made aware of were reported outside of PSU. Therefore PSU has ZERO liability as far as I'm concerned. The state of PA and TSM are the ones who should be apologizing to the victims and paying for liability in civil suits.

 

[CDW3333]

No they aren't going to pay for the acts of an ex-employee.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I've done insurance law for more than thirty years. What's your background?

 

[CDW3333]

How cute, the Freeh report is being used against PSU for 98, which was reported, and for 2001,which has no identified victim by the same insurance company which was supposedly consulted and drove the settlement process. I won't point out that is still only 2 cases out of the roughly 25 that PSU paid out, both before and after those cases. I won't even get into the hillarity of psu defending the veracity of the Freeh report in a court room setting given all their statements discrediting it and how its not being used for anything. Much like michy, you're the gift that keeps on giving.

"Reported" means reporting the incidents as potential claims to the insurance companies.

This PSU didn't do.

Now, the insurance company has to prove that the failure to report was material (i.e. they wouldn't have written the policies if they knew of the potential claims) and this is often difficult to do.

 

[WeR0206]

"Reported" means reporting the incidents as potential claims to the insurance companies.

This PSU didn't do.

Now, the insurance company has to prove that the failure to report was material (i.e. they wouldn't have written the policies if they knew of the potential claims) and this is often difficult to do.

Wouldn't step 1 be waiting for "failure to report" to be proven re: CSS? The state has to break the constitution just to charge FTR and both incidents were reported outside of PSU (in 2001 the admins went above and beyond their legal requirements at the time by informing TSM), so good luck with that!

Oh wait that hasn't even happened yet and PSU has already paid out settlements as if it has...oopsies! Turns out the freeh report, which was the basis for all the civil claims against PSU, is a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit...oopsises again!!

Some trustees, your pals, are going down for their neglect and malfeasance re: how this whole mess was handled.

 

[Marshall30]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I've done insurance law for more than thirty years. What's your background?

HR, Law, LE,,you're an idiot Penn Live clown.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I was just trying to answer a posters question.
I am moving on to football which you can say I do not know much about unlike insurance and risk management
My last reply on this

epradelli, I'm sorry to see that you've been given a tough time. I think it's a combo of your being a newbie, your not differentiating between some of the insurance minutia, and your including facts and opinions/rumors in the same post. (As an aside on the last part, most of those that have spoken with a lot of the inside players/folks in authority have heard numerous contradictory statements -- often presented as fact -- which makes it that much harder to discern the actual facts. Be careful with any info confided to you, unless you can get confirmation from independent individuals.)

I'm always open to those that are new to the board, especially if they appear to bring some expertise that has not been previously represented. I hope that you'll reconsider your "last reply on this" statement, and post more about your insurance knowledge.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

he had a huge ego & he allowed this to go on under his watch along w/ many other powerful people that could have stopped it !

whether these people had big egos or not (they did), it does not make any sense that they would stick out their necks to protect Sandusky. It just doesn't; he was not that important and he was retired. so to the extent that anybody was protecting him, something else must have been going on. And that would warrant continuing to ask lots of questions, which is what most of us are doing.

 

[Nitwit]

These payouts are blackmail and they reinforce the notion that C/S/S and JoePa did something wrong. Completely negligent to pay one red cent to anyone. The only victims were the Paterno's, the fans, the players, the local businesses, the truth, due process and the students.

So the children weren't victims? Or did you mean just not victims of any university employees?
I think the liability of the university stems from the notion that although the Penn State leadership were informed of Sandusky's activities, they did not take the action to stop it from recurring.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

So the children weren't victims? Or did you mean just not victims of any university employees?
I think the liability of the university stems from the notion that although the Penn State leadership were informed of Sandusky's activities, they did not take the action to stop it from recurring.

I think that's the idea; however, the fact that these enormous payouts are taking place before the administrators even have a perjury trial suggests that PSU is trying to cover up something. obviously they would be trying to cover up something that is not already publicly known.

 

[Marshall30]

So the children weren't victims? Or did you mean just not victims of any university employees?
I think the liability of the university stems from the notion that although the Penn State leadership were informed of Sandusky's activities, they did not take the action to stop it from recurring.

So was TSM and the State and they did nothing to stop it. Where's their liability??

 

[fairfaxlion2]

So was TSM and the State and they did nothing to stop it. Where's their liability??

Also what about the fact that the then-sitting governor knew a lot about him, in fact had the investigation under him as AG, but mysteriously nothing is publicly known until he could use it to take down a political enemy (Spanier), and it helps one of his political narratives (reducing funding for state universities)? And the fact that he also approved a multi-million grant to the second mile knowing full well that Sandusky was under heavy suspicion. How was the media not all over that?

 

[toddbrewster]

The reinsurance companies are undoubtedly leading this as we are probably in thier pocket now?
Many people knew about Sandusky even though they did not literally see him molest these kids.
I am personally very very close to a person who covered this case from day one and as a Joe and PSU loyalist I still have trouble believing it.but he says take the blinders off!
I spoke with several letterman who knew Sandusky was inappropriate to say the least with the young boys.
Strong speculation Joe knew of this behavior thus didn't want him as his predecessor? Joe was simply not himself as he aged to deal with it.thus the board knowing the above wanted him out but he would not leave

Thank you for posting this epradelli. If one looks objectively at the facts, this is what the vast majority believes. I posted for about 3 years how Jerry fooled Joe and everyone else. However, my contention for the last 1+ years remains that we need a new trial for Jerry. It seems to me that if Jerry was raping boys for 40 years that people knew it. If Jerry was weird and crossing borders and rumors started that Jerry was raping boys, then I think people would tell the insurance companies that they thought so.

If Jerry gets a new trial by an objective jury, I know this will change how the insurance people and the people not associated with PSU would feel about this incident regardless if they found Jerry guilty or innocent. The truth needs to come out and I doubt the C/S/S trials will happen in my lifetime. However, there is overwhelming evidence that Jerry did not get a fair trial.

 

[Marshall30]

Also what about the fact that the then-sitting governor knew a lot about him, in fact had the investigation under him as AG, but mysteriously nothing is publicly known until he could use it to take down a political enemy (Spanier), and it helps one of his political narratives (reducing funding for state universities)? And the fact that he also approved a multi-million grant to the second mile knowing full well that Sandusky was under heavy suspicion. How was the media not all over that?

I forgot about Corbett and his lackeys.

 

[Black Elmo 2]

1) Anybody that thinks the insurance companies aren't consulted before issuing $93M in settlement proceeds is a fool
2) They aren't paying for the acts of Sandusky. They are paying because the acts (or failure to act) of University leaders (C/S/S/P) allowed an environment of harm to exist when they could have prevented it.
3) No insurance company doles out $93M without being convinced that there is a strong argument that the University has some liability. They obviously have privy to some information that leads them to authorize the settlements.

 

[troutrus]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

I am having trouble understanding how you can be so obtuse!

 

[WeR0206]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

It's not a fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for JS, apparently you forgot CSS haven't even had their trials yet. And the state themselves have admitted the admins did nothing illegal in 2001.

However it is a fact that CSS went above and beyond their legal requirements in 2001 by informing outside counsel and also the phd director of the state licensed children's charity that employed JS who was legally required to look into any and all incidents.

If anyone dropped the ball re: JS it was TSM/CYS/PAOAG not some college admins/football coach. Those are the entities responsible for liability not PSU.

 

[lionlurker]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

You must have barely graduated, dude. You have remarkably little understanding of the facts.

But really, going overall all of your posts, it seems very unlikely that you are a PSU fan, period. Every single one of your posts is a negative slam.

Hence, I declare you to be another cancerous troll. Time for a new account, fella.

 

[PSU65]

Does anyone else have problems continuing to give them $$ after crap like this?

 

[fairfaxlion2]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

I have an extremely hard time understanding what possible motive they would have had to cover up for somebody like Sandusky. Especially Spanier. For someone in Spanier's position, a retired assistant coach is about the last person on their mind. Why would he protect him? And if he did, what else was going on? That's the unanswered question.

 

[simons96]

1) Anybody that thinks the insurance companies aren't consulted before issuing $93M in settlement proceeds is a fool
2) They aren't paying for the acts of Sandusky. They are paying because the acts (or failure to act) of University leaders (C/S/S/P) allowed an environment of harm to exist when they could have prevented it.
3) No insurance company doles out $93M without being convinced that there is a strong argument that the University has some liability. They obviously have privy to some information that leads them to authorize the settlements.

would it be helpful for me to point out that all 3 of your statements are factually inaccurate?

 

[Aoshiro]

1) Anybody that thinks the insurance companies aren't consulted before issuing $93M in settlement proceeds is a fool
2) They aren't paying for the acts of Sandusky. They are paying because the acts (or failure to act) of University leaders (C/S/S/P) allowed an environment of harm to exist when they could have prevented it.
3) No insurance company doles out $93M without being convinced that there is a strong argument that the University has some liability. They obviously have privy to some information that leads them to authorize the settlements.

The insurer has not authorized any settlements. The university's insurer (PMA) is not going to pay any of it, and I don't blame them one bit. The university had a duty to work with the insurer to mitigate damages, and instead the university (the trustees) irresponsibly exacerbated the situation by hiring Freeh to point the finger at Paterno and football in a fit of pique over the community's support for the football coach they fired.

 

[simons96]

The insurer has not authorized any settlements. The university's insurer (PMA) is not going to pay any of it, and I don't blame them one bit. The university had a duty to work with the insurer to mitigate damages, and instead the university (the trustees) irresponsibly exacerbated the situation by hiring Freeh to point the finger at Paterno and football in a fit of pique over the community's support for the football coach they fired.

shhhhhhh! hey man don't kill his roll just because, you know, he's wrong.

PMA and PSU have been in litigation over the claims paid out for a few years

LINK

 

[Ephrata Lion]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

Because it hasn't been PROVEN that "PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert" #IDIOT

 

[GTACSA]

Name the Lettermen or just shut up. Joe knew nothing.

Well Joe gave several statements that disagree with your assertion.

Some posters question why the media isn't picking up on some facts which many posters think are game changers. In light of Joe's previous testimony and statements, these "new" facts are not significant in the big picture.

 

[lionlurker]

Actually, dude, Joe did nothing of the sort. But keep trying.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

Well Joe gave several statements that disagree with your assertion.

Some posters question why the media isn't picking up on some facts which many posters think are game changers. In light of Joe's previous testimony and statements, these "new" facts are not significant in the big picture.

Not game changers, but obvious major unexplored avenues in this story, instead of the tired old "Paterno might have been the 11th or 12th person to blame, but we really aren't sure about that either"

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

Try to learn the facts. There was no cover up because there was no crime

 

[91Joe95]

1) Anybody that thinks the insurance companies aren't consulted before issuing $93M in settlement proceeds is a fool
2) They aren't paying for the acts of Sandusky. They are paying because the acts (or failure to act) of University leaders (C/S/S/P) allowed an environment of harm to exist when they could have prevented it.
3) No insurance company doles out $93M without being convinced that there is a strong argument that the University has some liability. They obviously have privy to some information that leads them to authorize the settlements.

Well, you got one thing right, no insurance company is paying $93MM to PSU.

 

[L.T. Young]

I have an extremely hard time understanding what possible motive they would have had to cover up for somebody like Sandusky. Especially Spanier. For someone in Spanier's position, a retired assistant coach is about the last person on their mind. Why would he protect him? And if he did, what else was going on? That's the unanswered question.

You do know how Spanier became chancellor at Nebraska? And you know his field of study?

The idea that he thought getting Sandusky help would be the "humane" thing to do isn't a stretch at all. Just to clarify, I obviously don't think he was told it was anal rape.

I'm not saying that's definitely what happened. I have always had reservations about Spanier's past and how it fits with the emails in the Freeh report.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

The old-guard trustees are protecting themselves, plain and simple.

Maybe they're just trying to do the right thing at a discount. Could that be it?

 

[Pitt4Life34]

I have been hesitant to post this in all these years. I am an insurance expert in higher education and worked on some catholic diocese accounts . We provided Educators legal liability to many colleges and diocese.this included sexual issues. A couple things to consider.
It's obvious why the university is paying this money just like the church.
The reinsurance companies are undoubtedly leading this as we are probably in thier pocket now?
Many people knew about Sandusky even though they did not literally see him molest these kids.
I am personally very very close to a person who covered this case from day one and as a Joe and PSU loyalist I still have trouble believing it.but he says take the blinders off!
I spoke with several letterman who knew Sandusky was inappropriate to say the least with the young boys.
Strong speculation Joe knew of this behavior thus didn't want him as his predecessor? Joe was simply not himself as he aged to deal with it.thus the board knowing the above wanted him out but he would not leave

It breaks my heart to say the above and I hope to God I am wrong but no matter even with the trials we will never know.

I said before I will never move on but insurance "experts" in these cases usually know the truth . They do not throw 33million around to settle a case unless they are sure!

Thanks for your insight

 

[Marshall30]

Well Joe gave several statements that disagree with your assertion.

Some posters question why the media isn't picking up on some facts which many posters think are game changers. In light of Joe's previous testimony and statements, these "new" facts are not significant in the big picture.

 

[PennSt8er]

I have been hesitant to post this in all these years. I am an insurance expert in higher education and worked on some catholic diocese accounts . We provided Educators legal liability to many colleges and diocese.this included sexual issues. A couple things to consider.
It's obvious why the university is paying this money just like the church.
The reinsurance companies are undoubtedly leading this as we are probably in thier pocket now?
Many people knew about Sandusky even though they did not literally see him molest these kids.
I am personally very very close to a person who covered this case from day one and as a Joe and PSU loyalist I still have trouble believing it.but he says take the blinders off!
I spoke with several letterman who knew Sandusky was inappropriate to say the least with the young boys.
Strong speculation Joe knew of this behavior thus didn't want him as his predecessor? Joe was simply not himself as he aged to deal with it.thus the board knowing the above wanted him out but he would not leave

It breaks my heart to say the above and I hope to God I am wrong but no matter even with the trials we will never know.

I said before I will never move on but insurance "experts" in these cases usually know the truth . They do not throw 33million around to settle a case unless they are sure!

This is inaccurate. Insurance is refusing to pay. This is all PSU $$ right now.

 

[BobPSU92]

As a Penn State grad and a fan for over fifty years I have no trouble accepting the fact that PSU employees attempted to cover up for a pervert and got caught. Now the employer is paying for those misdeeds. That's how it works. What's so hard to understand?

You're an idiot.

 

[Misder2]

I have been hesitant to post this in all these years. I am an insurance expert in higher education and worked on some catholic diocese accounts . We provided Educators legal liability to many colleges and diocese.this included sexual issues. A couple things to consider.
It's obvious why the university is paying this money just like the church.
The reinsurance companies are undoubtedly leading this as we are probably in thier pocket now?
Many people knew about Sandusky even though they did not literally see him molest these kids.
I am personally very very close to a person who covered this case from day one and as a Joe and PSU loyalist I still have trouble believing it.but he says take the blinders off!
I spoke with several letterman who knew Sandusky was inappropriate to say the least with the young boys.
Strong speculation Joe knew of this behavior thus didn't want him as his predecessor? Joe was simply not himself as he aged to deal with it.thus the board knowing the above wanted him out but he would not leave

It breaks my heart to say the above and I hope to God I am wrong but no matter even with the trials we will never know.

I said before I will never move on but insurance "experts" in these cases usually know the truth . They do not throw 33million around to settle a case unless they are sure!

Some of your post is on target but "The reinsurance companies are undoubtedly leading this as we are probably in thier pocket now?" makes no sense, can you clarify what you are saying? I think you may have heard or speculated wrongly.

 

[Misder2]

epradelli, I'm sorry to see that you've been given a tough time. I think it's a combo of your being a newbie, your not differentiating between some of the insurance minutia, and your including facts and opinions/rumors in the same post. (As an aside on the last part, most of those that have spoken with a lot of the inside players/folks in authority have heard numerous contradictory statements -- often presented as fact -- which makes it that much harder to discern the actual facts. Be careful with any info confided to you, unless you can get confirmation from independent individuals.)

I'm always open to those that are new to the board, especially if they appear to bring some expertise that has not been previously represented. I hope that you'll reconsider your "last reply on this" statement, and post more about your insurance knowledge.

I too would like to see you continue to add you thoughts on this.

 

[kgilbert78]

So the children weren't victims? Or did you mean just not victims of any university employees?
I think the liability of the university stems from the notion that although the Penn State leadership were informed of Sandusky's activities, they did not take the action to stop it from recurring.

It comes more from the fact that the University has lots of money.

I know of a situation where a person was on a lunch break and got into an accident that was the other driver's fault. But the police in the confusion (major injury) failed to cite the driver. Guess who got sued by the insurance company? The employer of the *victim*. No joke. But the insurance company thought there was money there. They couldn't sue the driver that causes the incident, because of the police error.