Unlike other filings against Lance Armstrong, there is no ambiguity in the Acceptance case. No argument about real damages or who is on the hook, Armstrong, Tailwind or both — as in the $120 million whistleblower case brought by the government and Floyd Landis. “Every check was made payable to Lance Armstrong,” says Mark Kincaid, of George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton, the Austin-based attorney for Acceptance Insurance. “Lance has to pay the $3 million.”
There is also no debate about contract language — as in SCA Promotions’ $12 million lawsuit against Armstrong. In the Acceptance contract, a Fraudulent Concealment clause is spelled out. Within his first five answers to Oprah, he exposed the fraud.
“The contract terms decide this case,” says Kincaid. “Those terms make it unwinnable for Lance Armstrong.”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
He’s going down. http://www.roopstigo.com/reader/2013-la-law-the-risk-strategy-of-armstrong-in-litigation-against-acceptance-insurance/
Unlike other filings against Lance Armstrong, there is no ambiguity in the Acceptance case. No argument about real damages or who is on the hook, Armstrong, Tailwind or both — as in the $120 million whistleblower case brought by the government and Floyd Landis. “Every check was made payable to Lance Armstrong,” says Mark Kincaid, of George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton, the Austin-based attorney for Acceptance Insurance. “Lance has to pay the $3 million.”
There is also no debate about contract language — as in SCA Promotions’ $12 million lawsuit against Armstrong. In the Acceptance contract, a Fraudulent Concealment clause is spelled out. Within his first five answers to Oprah, he exposed the fraud.
“The contract terms decide this case,” says Kincaid. “Those terms make it unwinnable for Lance Armstrong.”