According to MyNewsLA, Justin Baldoni's lawyers asked an L.A. Superior Court judge in new filings to rule that insurer QBE had a duty to defend him in the "It Ends With Us" litigation, arguing that the federal court in the Lively case already held she was never an employee, which kills QBE's sole coverage defense. The hearing is set for November 10.
The movie is over. Her lawsuit settled in May. His $400 million countersuit died last November. And the drama? The drama is now a billing dispute. The man who sued, was sued, and settled is now suing his own insurers for allegedly refusing to pay the defense costs of a harassment case, which means the last act of the summer's biggest Hollywood circus is an underwriting committee.
The legal question is the funniest line in any script: for insurance purposes, was Blake Lively an employee? QBE says she was, which conveniently triggers the employment exclusion, the industry's standard "your star is a coworker, not a client" clause. Baldoni points to a federal judge who already ruled she was "an actor, executive producer and entrepreneur," not an employee. A billion-dollar PR war is now waiting on whether a lead actress files a W-2.
The settlement was supposed to end this. It just changed the counterparty. First the actress, then the actor, now the insurance carrier. The Franchise is on season three and has no finale.
YOUR TURN: If a judge has to decide whether a lead actress was an employee, what does that say about the rest of Hollywood's paperwork?
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to add your two cents. They are worth exactly that.