Audra McDonald Lawsuit — Page 2

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.

And it also has nothing to do with the producers disrespecting Audra's child by calling it an 'accident.' Good Grief. 'Accident' is simply the moniker the policy uses to define collection abilities.

So they're pretending Audra wasn't scheduled to take a hiatus from the beginning. Originally earlier.

That Helen Hayes story is great! I just find it fascinating (and baffling) that an insurance carrier wouldn't specifically address the issue of pregnancy in insurance terms.



So they're pretending Audra wasn't scheduled to take a hiatus from the beginning. Originally earlier.

I'm sure this is what Lloyds will argue. To which Rudin will argue that the production was prepared to be operational for two months without McDonald but not six.

Harriet Craig said: "This reminds me of a story my mother loved to tell, about how Helen Hayes left a play when she became pregnant, and Jed Harris, who was the producer, shut down the play and tried to get out of paying the other actors the severance their contracts provided for, on the ground that the contract said he didn't have to pay if the play closed because of an "Act of God", and (according to Harris) Hayes's pregnancy was an "Act of God". If I remember correctly, the case went to court, and Harris lost.


It isn't exactly on point here, since Audra's case involves an insurance policy, not a contract between actors and producers, and apparently there was no "Act of God" clause in the insurance policy, but it just goes to show, actresses keep getting pregnant, and producers keep coming up with novel arguments to try to cut the resulting losses."



Thanks for sharing this. Much like our politics, some things never change.

ILoveYouPatina said: "This is ridiculous. They had a replacement already. Maybe if they were so concerned about advanced sales they would've A) advertised Rhiannon Giddens more than just the initial press release or B) get a name that would sell like Audra."

The difficulty of finding a name that sells like Audra in the event that she were unable to perform for an extended period of time is the reason they had the policy. If it were as easy as tweaking marketing and calling up any actor with a box office draw, they wouldn't have needed insurance.

Updated On: 11/14/16 at 09:08 PM

Did Rhiannon Giddens even exist? I barely remember seeing the name - could've as well removed the role from the show altogether for (the initial) three months.

I hope Rudin is turned away, serves him right for putting all stakes on Audra's name.

This is both interesting and disgusting. I agree that it all depends on how the court interprets Audra's pregnancy - and if it falls under the "accident" clause. Also, often these contracts have some sort of "mitigating" requirements, meaning, if the theatre starts burning down, you can't just sit there and let it burn and then ask for a check for the entire building, you must do something to minimize the loss. I think that in this case, the producers probably did enough to give the appearance of mitigating the loss - finding a replacement, announcing it, etc - again maybe not in the best way, but enough to meet the standard (assuming there was one in the contract).

I wonder of her age will come into play, meaning, "it would not be surprising for a 28 yr. old woman to get pregnant, but it is truly unexpected for someone in her mid 40s to, so surely this was an accident."

I hope this gets thrown out.

QueenAlice said: "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."

Agreed. People seem to be against insurance policies in general in the comments here? They got an insurance policy explicitly to cover them if Audra had to miss the show outside of her previously announced commitment.

Nobody was expecting the reason would be pregnancy which makes this sticky, but the producers paid for insurance to protect them from her absence.

I'm definitely not against insurance policies. They serve a purpose, but I wouldn't want to be the one that determines Audra McDonald's pregnancy an accident because people nowadays have a tendency to read too much into things, over analyze and generally misconstrue.

We all knew there was something very fishy about the way this show closed. Now we know why.

Obviously no way to prove that and it would be insane if this actually went to trial and they even attempted to argue that as a defense (the Insurance carrier that is). I think they will likely settle. Again, what is shocking is that there isn't something in the policy that specifically addresses pregnancy when it is the leading lady who is the one being insured.

Updated On: 11/16/16 at 01:00 PM

What is fishy about closing a show when its clear that the production won't be able to meet it's weekly running costs without the presence of its leading lady? There was really nothing fishy about the way the show closed. There isn't even anything fishy about the producers desire to cash in on Audra's insurance policy. They paid for it - so why shouldn't they?

There have been many other productions that have cashed in on insurance policies taken out on their stars. Ken Mandelbaum in his book on flops even mentions a few shows that managed to turn a profit despite closing quickly because they were able to cash in on insurance policies when their stars became indisposed.