Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
Let's say that player loses a leg due to a car accident. He will get paid, although the contract is frustrated, absent words in the contract to the contrary. The team still has an obligation to pay the player although the injury is non hockey related. You are talking about non-hockey injures which are specifically prohibited by contract.
Since we don't have the actual contract, here is what we do know.
The estate will get paid the full amount of the contract as the BJ's are on the hook for it. Contracts in the NHL are fully guaranteed unless the player is in breach of it. Non-hockey injuries would constitute a breach presumably if they were specifically prohibited by the contract. While the contract may be technically terminated in terms of cap and such, the obligation of the BJ's to pay presumably continues.
The Blue Jackets may or may not have had life insurance in effect for the amount of the contract, because they aren't required by the CBA to do so, just a lesser amount. Although the general practice according to Matt Read is that teams generally do, it's just prudent business. But if they don't, the estate still gets the full amount of Johnny's contract, because its not tied to insurance they they receive.
|
Well said. It costs something like $150k usd annually to cover the entirety of an average teams’ contractual obligations for Accidental death and dismemberment in the NHL program they have set up league wide with insurance companies. I can’t imagine any team is not fully enrolled in that despite only being partially mandated to participate.
Had Johnny got injured bungee jumping, or took his own life by choice, the contract would possibly be void and uninsured; but that’s a different story than what occurred here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk