Via TD Thornton
A co-owner of a stallion has passed away Laoban (Uncle Mo) is suing a class of insurance providers in an alleged wrongful denial of coverage for non-payment of consequential death policies of an 8-year-old child sudden death 10 months ago.
The civil suit was filed March 22 in the Fayette Circuit Court of Kentucky. The Paulick Report first break the story.
According to court filings, Cypress Creek Equine, LLC, wants the defendants – North America Special Insurance Company, XL Special Insurance Company and Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and Lloyd’s Kentucky, Inc. – pay an undisclosed amount that includes death insurance, punitive damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees.
According to the lawsuit, “On May 24, 2021, a healthy stallion Laoban, partly owned by Cypress, died unexpectedly in Fayette County, Kentucky, after being supplemented with vitamins and minerals.” Me
Laoban, whose only win from nine starts at GII Jim Dandy S. in Saratoga in 2016, retired after that season with $526,250 in earnings and stands at the Sequel Stallions in New York. Equal TDNSid Fernando’s recent reportLaoban “originally cost $7,500, but he had success with his first two-year-olds – finishing second on the 2020 first crop list following Uncle Mo‘S Nyquist–And was transferred to WinStar in Kentucky for the 2021 season for a fee of $25,000. ”
Breed of 10 black category winners, the first Laoban case included a Class l winner Simply Ravishing and a Class II winner and many Rank l Keepmeinmind.
Laoban is also the father of Un Ojo, who let down GII Rebel S. last month with 75-1 odds. That one-eyed gelding is now listed as the most recent “above the bubble” horse TDN top 12 ranking for the GI Kentucky Derby, but he placed third on the official qualifying score list. Cypress Creek Equine owns Un Ojo.
“At the time of death, Cypress was insured for death by death policies issued and/or modified by the Insurer,” the filing states.
“In a letter dated 4 August 2021, the Insurers falsely denied Cypress death coverage and thus a real controversy exists under [Kentucky state law]”The file states.
“The disclaimer is based on the provision(s) in the policies which are ambiguous and/or should be construed as affording Cypress coverage under a reasonable expectation of its coverage,” the filing states. clear.
Defendants could not be reached for comment ahead of time for this story. They have 21 days from the date of filing the lawsuit to respond in court.