Kanye West’s Insurer Counters Pointing to Drug x Alcohol Policies

A Lloyd’s of London syndicate – Kanye West’s insurer – responds to his $10 million suit with allegations that Ye’s camp has “delayed, hindered, stalled and or refused to provide information.”

Facing a $10 million lawsuit for not paying up after Kanye West’s cancelled a tour, a Lloyd’s of London syndicate has hit back with counterclaims that point to their insurance policy exclusions pertaining to a pre-existing psychological condition, possession of illegal drugs, prescription drugs not taken as medically prescribed, and the consumption of alcohol rendering the insured unfit to perform.

Ye filed his suit earlier this month, and in his touring company’s complaint, his cooperation with insurers to demands for information was highlighted. For instance, Ye submitted himself to an interrogation under oath after checking himself into the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital Center and canceling the second leg of his Saint Pablo Tour. The goal was to convince the insurers that Ye’s mental breakdown was real, unexpected, and not due to pernicious influences.

In counterclaims, the insurers present a different story.

“Underwriters’ investigation indicates substantial irregularities in West’s medical history,” states the court papers. “Furthermore the insured’s failure to cooperate in Underwriters’ investigation is contrary to the duties of cooperation VGT agreed to as a condition precedent to any obligation of Underwriters to pay any claim arising under the Policies. Throughout Underwriters’ investigation, VGT and its legal, medical and other agents and representatives have delayed, hindered, stalled and or refused to provide information both relevant and necessary for Underwriters to complete their investigation of the claim.”

Lloyd’s has refrained from detailing exactly what it uncovered during its investigation. The insurer says it’s omitting reference to specific information “in order to protect the privacy of Ye from public disclosure of details of his private life.” But in nodding to exclusions, the implications are fairly clear and illustrate where this case is headed.

The defendants are seeking declaratory relief that they have no duty to indemnify West’s company because the insuring clause allegedly has not been triggered and is expressly excluded by conditions in the policy.