Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:04pm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marchershberg/2016/11/14/audra-mcdonald-stars-in-new-lawsuit/#6f7c5f17133e
I can see this case settling soon.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:11pm
Or thrown out, more likely.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:15pm
It is baffling that the producers are still trying to pin the failure of the show on McDonald's pregnancy- it was selling well, it scooped up 10 Tony nominations, it had other headlining performers. Audra was not the pole holding the tent up. I wholeheartedly agree with Lloyd's decision here.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:15pm
Is it possible this had something to do with the quick and unexpected closing? Closing likely would have been inevitable but... it seemed odd they didn't even try.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:17pm
Kad said: "It is baffling that the producers are still trying to pin the failure of the show on McDonald's pregnancy- it was selling well, it scooped up 10 Tony nominations, it had other headlining performers. Audra was not the pole holding the tent up. I wholeheartedly agree with Lloyd's decision here."
All of this is true except people were not buying tickets for the performances without Audra. I remember watching the ticket availability closely for this one and it literally went from practically sold out to completely available the day after Audra was scheduled to be on hiatus.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:17pm
"The Broadway show had taken out two insurance policies, totaling $14 million, to mitigate the risk that an illness or accident would prevent her from performing, or force the entire production to be abandoned."
Wait. The producers PAID 14 million for the policies or the policies are worth $14 million?
Either way, a pregnancy is not an accident or an illness, at least not the type of accident referred to in the policy.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:27pm
Jish said: "Kad said: "It is baffling that the producers are still trying to pin the failure of the show on McDonald's pregnancy- it was selling well, it scooped up 10 Tony nominations, it had other headlining performers. Audra was not the pole holding the tent up. I wholeheartedly agree with Lloyd's decision here."
All of this is true except people were not buying tickets for the performances without Audra. I remember watching the ticket availability closely for this one and it literally went from practically sold out to completely available the day after Audra was scheduled to be on hiatus.
"
They could have sold more tickets if they at least tried to advertise rhionnan giddens replacing Audra.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:30pm
i mean that is kind of an accident, what 45-year old woman expects to get pregnant.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:32pm
That makes much more sense, Tag. The wording was unclear.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:44pm
I'm sure Audra's absence would have hurt the bottom line but why are the producers acting like they share no blame in the failure of the show? Instead of pushing the ensemble aspect, all the adds said come see the 'Six Time Tony Award Winner'. Nor did they advertise Audra's replacement enough. Point blank, she was scheduled to miss three months for Lady Day, and while her pregnancy would have kept her out of the show longer, the producers still should have been better equipped to run the show without her. Instead they tried to cash in on a insurance policy, instead of giving the show a chance, to keep their pockets lined. Karma is a...
Posted: 11/14/16 at 1:53pm
"why are the producers acting like they share no blame in the failure of the show?"
Because Scott Rudin does not just accept failure.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 2:20pm
This is definitely one of those cases that will be studied and talked about in the future.
I definitely wouldn't want to blame Audra for any of this and she is truly not in the middle of the lawsuit as she's not being sued, but I assume it must be taxing for her to know that either way the lawsuit sways, someone will be losing because of her pregnancy.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 2:22pm
Well I think this makes it obvious that upon learning that Audra was pregnant, the producers thought back to this insurance policy and immediately decided to close the show and use her pregnancy as a case for trying to collect and recover full costs for their investors. It was probably obvious to all of them (even before Audra left) that the show, despite good reviews and strong ticket sales would likely never recoup its massive mounting and running costs, so they probably saw this as a really golden opportunity.
It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out. I'm surprised the policy doesn't expressly defer pregnancy as a cause for filing.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 2:50pm
My question is how does the planned hiatus to do Lady Day in London affect this? In my (non-legal) opinion the accepted the fact that she'd be out of the show for a period of time and as such should have been prepared to deal with her pregnancy. If she was so vital, why did they allow her hiatus in the first place?
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:02pm
Also, not really sure how Audra and Will will take to having their conception of a wonderful child as an "accident" in court proceedings. Disgusting on many levels.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:09pm
Only time Audra was glad not to get the Tony now.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:13pm
Use protection.....what a greedy lawsuit ....throw it out of court. And - the show was overrated.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:24pm
You'd probably be "greedy" too if you lost millions of dollars...
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:38pm
And yet, they didn't have to lose millions of dollars. They chose to.
I agree with Lloyd's of London's decision. The show boasted an all star cast and really did not have to close. Yes, Audra McDonald draws in an audience but so do Brian Stokes Mitchell and Billy Porter. The show could have continued running. I think it is really insulting to both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Porter that the producers are suggesting otherwise. It demonstrates lack of faith in the talents of these two performers. It's not a good look on either Rudin and his producing partners.
They had someone ready to take Audra's place and then promptly pulled the plug anyway. That decision has to factor in their somewhere.
I don't see this going in favor of the producers.
They made the decision, they have to suffer the loss.
Updated On: 11/14/16 at 03:38 PM
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:42pm
Jallenc32 said: "My question is how does the planned hiatus to do Lady Day in London affect this? In my (non-legal) opinion the accepted the fact that she'd be out of the show for a period of time and as such should have been prepared to deal with her pregnancy. If she was so vital, why did they allow her hiatus in the first place?"
the Lady Day was already planned and her involvement in Shuffle wouldn't have happened if they hadn't allowed her to leave. but that was for a planned specific amount of time, her pregnancy would have meant she would be out of the show for an unspecified period of time.
Updated On: 11/14/16 at 03:42 PM
Posted: 11/14/16 at 3:43pm
I'll be interested to see how this goes. I see both sides of this, so it really depends what the insurance documents actually say.
Lloyd's made the decision to insure Audra's presence, which may have been a mistake... They did lose money based on Audra's absence.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:16pm
That's kind of what I'm thinking neonlights -- if they specifically ensured McDonald, and they can make a case that her departure was unforeseen medical reasons, then they may have a case.
I think some of you aren't looking at this from a business angle. This has nothing to do with talent or disrespecting the other performers -- this has to do with the producers trying to minimize their losses once they realized they wouldn't be able to sell tickets without their star performer. Why shouldn't Rudin try to collect? This is the reason why producers take out insurance policies. It's not shady dealings -- They only story here is the question mark as to whether a pregnancy qualifies under the terms of the agreement for collection or settlement.
Updated On: 11/14/16 at 04:16 PM
Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:21pm
QueenAlice said: "That's kind of what I'm thinking neonlights -- if they specifically ensured McDonald, and they can make a case that her departure was unforeseen medical reasons, then they may have a case.
"
I have a hard time believing that a judge will buy the "pregnancy as accident leading to illness" theory that they are selling. But I suppose stranger things have happened.
Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:35pm
Per the Forbes article: "Reserving some wiggle room, the insurance policy defines an accident or illness as an “accident or illness of any Insured Person which, in the opinion of an independent medical practitioner …, entirely prevents any Insured Person from appearing or continuing to appear in any part of the Insured Production.”
If McDonald had broken her leg, this insurance policy would have been paid unquestionably. Its really, again, all a definition of whether Audra's pregnancy made it impossible for her to fulfill her contract (which it did). So I think Rudin has a case he can at least argue in court.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
