Audra McDonald Lawsuit- Page 2

[QueenAlice]

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.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:47pm

Right, it's not about whether this is a crappy or scummy thing to do. It's about whether they can cash in on their insurance policy. Which they may be able to. Again, it just depends on the terms of the policy.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:53pm

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.

[Harriet Craig]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:55pm

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.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 4:57pm

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

[FlySkyHigh]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 5:00pm

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.

 

"

It was only made impossible by the show closing. Had it stayed open, she would have returned to the show. She stayed a month longer than planned this summer and more than likely would have stayed with the show longer in 2017 to meet the terms of her contract.

 

I don't think anyone would challenge the fact that Audra's pregnancy created unforeseen complications but the producers are trying to use it as a loophole. Based on the decline in ticket sales after her departure, even when it was just for Lady Day, this show was doomed. They're crying illness or accident when bad marketing and/or bad timing was probably the more likely reason the show failed.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 5:02pm

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.

 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 5:07pm

FlySkyHigh said: "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..."

Excellent points, especially about Lady Day. I wonder if going forward, they'll be able to take out insurance policies for pregnancy or other extended leaves by altering the wording of those policies/contracts.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 5:40pm

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]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 8:06pm

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. 

Updated On: 11/14/16 at 08:06 PM

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 11/14/16 at 9:08pm

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

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 11/15/16 at 11:30am

"McDonald Vs. Rudin Productions or, the Broadway Court Case of 2016 and All That Followed."

[mullein]

Posted: 11/15/16 at 11:55am

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.

[Broadwaystar2]

Posted: 11/15/16 at 3:17pm

She was scheduled to be gone anyway to The West End. This is all on the producers!

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 10:10am

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.  

[quizking101]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 11:31am

I feel like the fact that, even though they hired a replacement, they didn't exactly do enough to promote that replacement in order to minimize their loss. There was ZERO expenditure on advertising, to the point that even advertisements for the current cast slowed/stopped about a month before the show closed. 

I moreso feel bad that this is supposed to be a happy moment in Audra's life and she's being dragged through the ringer by (perceivably) greedy producers and (perceivably) unforgiving insurers.

[Jish]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 11:53am

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.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 12:13pm

I wonder if the insurance policy was indeed part of the reason that Rudin closed the show early. 

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 12:16pm

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.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 12:18pm

Undoubtedly this policy played a role in the decision to close the show.  And again, that doesn't make him a villain. The producers paid for an insurance policy to cover the production in the event Audra McDonald had to withdraw due to unforeseen circumstances, and  would not be able to complete her contract.  It made more financial sense to close the show and act on the insurance claim than to keep the show running at a loss with a replacement who wouldn't sell as many tickets.   This is called business.

Also -- again -- "accident' is simply the moniker as described in the policy to describe an unforeseen medical event. No one is trying to insult Ms. McDonald by saying her baby was an 'accident' and not something wonderful.

Updated On: 11/16/16 at 12:18 PM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 12:36pm

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

[Kad]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 12:57pm

The trouble with affixing "accident" to a pregnancy is that accidents are unintentional. Wouldn't it need to be proven that Will Swenson and Audra McDonald were not intending to have a child? But, even if it weren't, and even though pregnancy was unlikely, it was still possible and shouldn't have Swenson and McDonald taken preventative measures? If they weren't, then weren't they knowingly engaging in risky behavior?

 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 1:00pm

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

[GoblinKing2]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 1:41pm

QueenAlice said: "Also -- again -- "accident' is simply the moniker as described in the policy to describe an unforeseen medical event. No one is trying to insult Ms. McDonald by saying her baby was an 'accident' and not something wonderful."

 

Sadly, legal language is full of bad optics. My favorite is a local case where the city's defense in a lawsuit brought by a family whose 11 year old was shot and killed by police included language suggesting the boy brought it on himself.  While the hosts of the show who brought this up were in meltdown, more than one lawyer called in and said any lawyer who DIDN'T include that language in such a defense was incompetent and should be fired.   It's not personal, but it still sounds pretty awful when read straight up.  

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 11/16/16 at 2:11pm

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.