Giresse settles for Senegal draw

Senegal coach Alain Giresse declared on Friday that his side’s 1-1 draw against South Africa in Group C at the Africa Cup of Nations must go down as a good result.

“We knew we were playing against a good side and to not lose constitutes a good result for us,” said the Frenchman after the game which left the Lions of Teranga on top of the group and in need of just a point against Algeria in their last match to reach the quarter-finals.

Senegal beat Ghana 2-1 in their opening game but Giresse made four changes to his starting line-up for the meeting with the South Africans in Mongomo, with Moussa Sow one of those coming in after netting the winner against the Black Stars.

“I made four changes to my starting line-up to add some physical freshness, and it was planned that Sadio Mane would return for the second match,” added the coach.

“Nothing is settled. The final day will be fatal. That shows how difficult a group this is.”

Goalkeeper and captain Bouna Coundoul added: “Before the start of the tournament we said that Senegal were outsiders because we finished second in our qualifying group. But now we are top of the group.

“We wanted to win, but the important thing was not to lose and keep alive our chances of qualifying.”

View the original article here

Giresse settles for Senegal draw

Advantage settles accident claim

With Claudienne Edwards

Sunday, January 18, 2015    

Dear Claudienne,

I am writing on behalf of my brother.

On August 26, 2014, I was travelling with him in his motor vehicle, when we were hit by another car. On the date of the accident the driver of the other vehicle accepted responsibility for the accident in the presence of police officers who arrived on the scene.

My brother’s vehicle is a 2007 Mitsubishi Pajero and he is insured with Advantage General. The car that hit his vehicle was also insured with Advantage.

My brother submitted a claim within the time specified by the insurance company along with all the required documents.

After two months, during which time he made numerous telephone calls to the insurance company, he was advised that his vehicle would be written off as a loss. However, Advantage told him that he would not be paid the amount of money that the vehicle was insured for, as the valuator had overvalued the vehicle by $700,000.

This was despite the fact that the insurance company had accepted the valuation and had given him a premium based on this valuation. My brother had paid the premium in full. The valuator recommended by Advantage had valued the vehicle for J$2,850,000.

My brother told the insurance company that the settlement proposal was unacceptable as the vehicle valuation for J$2,850,000 had been done on July 16, 2014, approximately six weeks prior to the accident, by the loss adjustor company recommended by them.

He has been trying without success to have this matter settled. Every week when he calls the company it is the same response: “We are still processing the claim; call us back next week.”

It has been very hard, as he lives in Trelawny and works in Savanna-la-Mar. To date (December 9, 2014) the insurance company has only agreed to pay for car rental service for four weeks.

Is there anything that you can do to assist him in getting his claim processed? We would be forever grateful.

FC

Dear FC,

After receiving your e-mail dated December 9, 2014, we contacted the claims manager at Advantage General. She informed Tell Claudienne that she had never spoken to your brother but was aware that settlement options had been communicated to him under cover letter dated November 11, 2014. She also said that your brother had retained the services of a lawyer and that the company “would prefer not to provide any further information until our negotiations with the attorney have been concluded”.

Tell Claudienne contacted your brother, who pointed out that although his attorney wrote to the insurance company on November 20, 2014, they had not responded to the letter up to the time you wrote to us on December 9, 2014.

Your brother sent us a copy of the letter he received from the insurance company.

Pertaining to the settlement the letter stated the following:

“Please be advised that the assessor…. provided a market value of $2,150,000; we are aware that a valuation was done by…… on July 3, 2014 with a value of $2,850.000 given by them.

“In light of the above we would consider one of two options:

“(1) Averaging the original sum insured and pre-accident values which would amount to $2,500,000. The value of the salvage (residual value of the vehicle) is $650,000 and this amount will be deducted from the settlement offer. The settlement also is subjected to the deduction of a policy excess which is three per cent of the pre-accident value.

“(2) Settling on the pre-accident value and recalculate the premium using a value of $2,150,000 and will refund the difference in premium which amounts to $7,632.21. The value of the salvage (residual value of the vehicle is $650,000 and this amount will be deducted from the settlement offer). The settlement is subjected to the deduction of a policy excess which is three per cent of the pre-accident value.

“Kindly let us have your decision at which time we will provide further documentation and requests as it relates to the settlement.”

After your brother sent Tell Claudienne a copy of the settlement proposals he received from the insurance company on December 17, 2014, we informed the claims manager that we would be asking her via e-mail to clarify why it had taken the insurance company a protracted period to respond to the letter from the lawyer urging them to accept the initial valuation which Advantage said was done on July 3, 2014 for J$2,850,000.

The lawyer’s letter dated November 20, 2014 to Advantage had stated: “We strongly urge you to accept the initial valuation by…… and request that the full J$2,850,000 be used to calculate any settlement in this matter.”

On the same day, December 17, at 3:49 pm Tell Claudiene received an e-mail from you and your brother advising us that the insurance company in a letter to the lawyer earlier that day, December 17, 2014, made a “new proposal”. The insurance company accepted the initial valuation of $2,850,000 and agreed to use this figure to calculate the settlement of your brother’s claim.

The letter to your brother’s lawyer apologised for the “delayed response”. The letter stated the following:

“Further to telephone conversation between (the lawyer) of even date wherein you were informed that our settlement decision as outlined in our letter dated November 11, 2014 was on the principle of indemnity. However, further review of SM’s policy has revealed that his policy is an Agreed Value policy, which means that any offer of settlement should be done using the sum insured afforded by the policy.

In light of the above, our revised settlement offer is outlined below: Sum insured $2,850,000, less salvage $650,000 equal $2,200,000, less excess $85,500 equal $2,114,500.”

Tell Claudienne asked the claims manager of the insurance company to clarify why in the proposed settlement letter dated November 11, 2014 to your brother the principle of indemnity was not mentioned.

We also asked her to explain the meaning of the principle of indemnity.

We received the following response from the claims manager:

“The principle of indemnity was not mentioned in our letter dated November 11, 2014 to SM as we were responding directly to an e-mail that he had sent.

“As requested, attached is an extract of the Advantage General’s Motor Vehicle Policy Booklet which has the definition of ‘indemnity’.

“Trusting that you will find our response adequate.”

Advantage General’s Motor Vehicle Policy Booklet states that indemnity means “Compensation which is sufficient to put the insured in the same financial position after the loss as he was in immediately before the loss took place. The measure of indemnity in the event of a Total Loss/Constructive Total Loss will be based on the market value or insured’s estimate of value, whichever is less.”

Insured’s estimate of value means “The sum for which the vehicle is covered. It is the maximum amount payable by the company for loss or damage to the vehicle and the sum to which the Excess will apply.”

We note that your brother has now received a cheque from Advantage General in settlement of the money owed. We see that he is pleased that the sum he received was calculated on the basis of the $2,850,000 that his vehicle had been insured for.

Good luck.

Have a problem with a store, utility, a company? Telephone 936-9436 or write to: Tell Claudienne c/o Sunday Finance, Jamaica Observer, 40-42 1/2 Beechwood Avenue, Kingston 5; or e-mail: edwardsc@jamaicaobserver.com. Please include a contact phone number.

View the original article here

Advantage settles accident claim

VA settles complaints by 3 Phoenix whistleblowers

The Veterans Affairs Department said Monday it has reached financial settlements with three employees who faced retaliation after filing whistleblower complaints about the troubled Phoenix VA hospital.

The employees were among the first to report widespread wrongdoing at the Phoenix hospital, including chronic delays for veterans seeking care and falsified waiting lists covering up those delays. Similar problems were soon identified at other VA medical facilities across the country in a scandal that forced the ouster of former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and a new law overhauling the agency and making it easier to fire senior officials.

Dr. Katherine Mitchell, a former co-director of emergency care at the Phoenix hospital; Paula Pedene, the hospital’s former chief spokeswoman; and Damian Reese, a program analyst, all filed retaliation complaints with the independent Office of Special Counsel. The counsel’s office and the VA announced the settlements Monday in separate statements.

The three employees will remain with the VA and received what the special counsel’s office called “full and fair relief.” Exact terms of the settlements were not disclosed.

Mitchell and Pedene have accepted new assignments, while Reese will continue as a program analyst at the Phoenix hospital. Mitchell will oversee the hospital’s quality of patient care, while Pedene will work in the communications office of the Veterans Health Administration, which oversees VA health care.

“Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Pedene and Mr. Reese followed their consciences and reported wrongdoing, and their efforts have improved care and accountability at the VA,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner.

Lerner applauded VA Secretary Robert McDonald and other VA leaders for acting quickly to resolve the Phoenix cases and taking steps to change the agency’s culture, which she said has allowed and even encouraged retaliation against those who filed complaints.

By allowing the three “courageous employees to return to successful careers at the VA,” the agency’s current leaders are “sending a clear message: Whistleblowing should be encouraged, not punished,” Lerner said.

McDonald said in a separate statement that the VA takes whistleblower complaints seriously and will not tolerate retaliation against those who raise issues that may enable VA to better serve veterans.

“We depend on VA employees and leaders to put the needs of veterans first and honor VA’s core values of `integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect and excellence,’ ” he said.

Pedene was removed from her $106,000-a-year job in December 2012 and transferred to the hospital library. In April, she was assigned to work in a windowless basement where she had few if any duties. “A horrible way to live” is how she described the experience in a phone interview Monday.

“I was humiliated every day,” Pedene said. “Although I am looking forward to new opportunities I feel saddened I am not going to be able to do my public affairs role as I have done in Phoenix for the past 20 years.”

View the original article here

VA settles complaints by 3 Phoenix whistleblowers

Access Financial settles down after bitter fights

Following months of  a bitter feud which was shaping up to become a legal battle the Directors of  Access Financial appear to have buried the hatchet. In a statement last night, hours after the company’s annual general meeting, the Directors said they have committed to work in the best interest of  the entity in unity and cooperation. It said at the AGM shareholders re-elected most of the Directors.                Chairman Brian Goldson, Christopher Berry and Peter McConnell were returned. Alexander Johnson was replaced by Neville James. The other members are Chief  Executive Officer Marcus James and Gary Peart.  Earlier this year a dispute erupted over what some Board members claimed in a lawsuit was an unjust enrichment of Marcus James from renovation works done on Access Financial’s headquarters.

View the original article here

Access Financial settles down after bitter fights

Patrick Hoyos: Mia Mottley settles the Barbados leadership question

Leader of the Barbados Labour Party, Mia Amor Mottley (Credit: Mia Mottley/Facebook)

Patrick Hoyos

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados, Monday July 28, 2014 – Last week proved to be a turning point in the career of Mia Amor Mottley, both as Opposition Leader and potential next prime minister of Barbados.In short, there is no doubt now who leads the Barbados Labour Party, not just in name, but in deed.

Some people (including me, if someone were to have asked me) may have advised her not to lead last Thursday’s march from Parliament to Government Headquarters, where the increasingly embattled cabinet of the Freundel Stuart administration was having its regular meeting, but Ms. Mottley did as her leadership instincts advised, and went ahead anyway.

Even the rain accommodated her, falling late in the evening as the sun went down so as not to disturb the sunshine-filled midday event.

Click here to receive free news bulletins via email from Caribbean360. (View sample)

Her brief speech from the back of the lead truck at the Bay Street-Beckles Road stoplight – the march been made to end there by the police in an over-abundance of caution – was a metaphorical victory lap for Ms. Mottley, as she surveyed the thousands who had followed her and her parliamentary colleagues, but she displayed no unseemly pride in her new unchallengeable status.

She can now move forward with confidence in taking the fight to the government without looking over her shoulder all the time.

Even on the day of Mia’s complete ascension to the title of undisputed leader, Owen could not resist asking for attention. 

What a difference a day makes, goes the lyric to an old jazz standard. And that difference is Mia Mottley. You might think I am making a big thing of this, but I say – knowing nothing about politics and all of its strategies – to give credit where its due.

The announcement of the demonstration, the first held by one of the two major political parties in a very long time, was openly criticized by one MP, who went on the air – as if he were her equal in party status – to say he wasn’t going to take part and that it was a bad idea. Something about raising the expectations of the people too high, which would only disappoint them and turn them against the party, if the hated Solid Waste Tax was not repealed as a direct result of the march.

It was an argument that was a solid waste of broadcast time. Nobody in their right mind who takes part in a demonstration is crushed if they don’t get their way. They accept that they may not achieve their goal, but they want those in power to understand how they feel. They know that cumulatively this may in time tip the balance in their favour.

Ms. Mottley seems to be succeeding in stirring up a national whirlwind of countrywide opposition

A couple of hours after it ended, I spoke to one of the people who took part in the demonstration. She was at work keeping the dining area of a popular mall clean and tidy for patrons. For her, she said, it was more a victory for Barbados than for the BLP. She felt so good that she had been able to let the government know her view on the tax and how hard they had made life in general, even if nobody knew that she was there individually. It was good for her psychologically, she told me, to actually go out and peacefully protest against what you thought was unjust in your country.

That was why it was a good day for Barbados, as the people didn’t do enough of these kinds of demonstrations, she said. And then she went back to work.

Ms. Mottley, I realised, had reached past all of the intellectual ‘long talk’ about political strategy and gone out on a limb. She might have failed, but she would have done so with her heart in the right place. Many people (yes, including you-know-who) have wondered about her overall strategy, which is reflected in the public sessions which the Bees have been hosting all over the country of late, and in her speech from the back of that lorry on Thursday.

Ms. Mottley, I realised, had reached past all of the intellectual ‘long talk’ about political strategy and gone out on a limb. 

There she read from her letter to the prime minister, offering ideas for the way forward and calling on the administration to bring the Opposition into its confidence and work towards a bipartisan approach to getting us out of the economic whirlpool dragging us to the bottom.

Ms. Motley has take an all-inclusive approach and while I would never have come up with it myself (which is why I am no politician) I have to admit that it finally seems to be gaining traction.

Instead of just trying to stir up a political storm, Ms. Mottley seems to be succeeding in stirring up a national whirlwind of countrywide opposition to an administration whose policies may leave the country bankrupt, given a little more time.

Two opponents of Ms. Mottley were swift to harden their positions. Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler said essentially that you could march wherever you liked, but you will eventually have to march over to your bank for money to pay the solid waste tax anyway.

And Owen Arthur, the sole MP not to take part, whose lack of support for Ms. Mottley was as much in evidence as much as it was unmissed, however lost no time in calling up a newspaper to try to re-direct the spotlight on himself. He hinted at an early resignation from Parliament, claiming he was tired of always being made the centre of controversy, or words to that effect.

Even on the day of Mia’s complete ascension to the title of undisputed leader, Owen could not resist asking for attention. Like Winston Churchill, the great man can not concede that his era of leadership is over. (Source: Broad Street Journal)

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Pat Hoyos. Pat Hoyos is a business writer and publisher of the Broad Street Journal.

View the original article here

Patrick Hoyos: Mia Mottley settles the Barbados leadership question

Djokovic settles down to win at US Open

NEW YORK, USA (AP) — Novak Djokovic faced two set points early in his second-round match at the US Open.

He saved them, won the set, then needed less than an hour to close out a victory. The 2011 champion beat 87th-ranked Benjamin Becker of Germany 7-6 (2), 6-2, 6-2 yesterday.Becker had a chance to serve for the first set at 5-4. But he wasted the first with a forehand into the net and the second when a backhand sailed wide.The wind was swirling at Arthur Ashe Stadium, as it often does during the day to players’ frustration.“You need to have this adjustment, footwork, steps, in order to get on the ball,” Djokovic said.Another Grand Slam winner, Li Na, also showed some championship form earlier on Ashe.This time, her opponent, Laura Robson, looked very much like a teenager.The fifth-seeded Li avenged her third-round upset loss to the young Brit at last year’s US Open, winning in straight sets at the same stage at Flushing Meadows.Li, the 2011 French Open champ, rallied from down a break in the second set for a 6-2, 7-5 victory.Li was nervous after she noticed that her draw was a repeat from last year. A pep talk from coach Carlos Rodriguez eased her anxiety.Agnieszka Radwanska needed nearly two hours to slip past number 32-seeded Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 6-4, 7-6 (1). The third-seeded Pole faced 10 break points, but Pavlyuchenkova was able to convert only two, while Radwanska was three for five.Wimbledon runner-up Sabine Lisicki, seeded 16th, won’t be making a run at Flushing Meadows after she was eliminated in straight sets by Ekaterina Makarova. The 24th-seeded Russian won 6-4, 7-5.A year ago, Robson’s upset of Li was the biggest victory of her breakthrough run. Meanwhile, it was the third straight frustrating US Open loss for the Chinese star.Robson was ranked 89th coming into last year’s tournament. She had never advanced past the second round at a Grand Slam event or defeated a top-10 opponent.That all changed when she upset major champions Kim Clijsters and Li back-to-back to make the fourth round. Now 19, Robson was seeded 30th at Flushing Meadows and coming off a fourth-round run at Wimbledon.Li had 34 unforced errors in their match a year ago, and she lamented then that the free points lifted the teen’s confidence. This time, Robson never had much of an opening.Li surprised herself with 11 aces yesterday — including one on a second serve on match point — and won all nine points when she went to the net. She’s back in the fourth round at the US Open for the first time since 2009.Her run over, Robson now must face an unfortunate reality for many teenagers: getting her wisdom teeth out.“All the other girls in the locker room are telling me their horror stories: ‘Oh, yeah, I pulled my gauze out and it was just blood,”‘ Robson said. “So that’s not too nice.”Defending champs Serena Williams and Andy Murray were scheduled for matches late yesterday. Williams will be back on court a day after playing singles and doubles, facing Yaroslava Shvedova in the nightcap at Ashe.Two other US Open winners, Juan Martin del Potro and Lleyton Hewitt, were also due to face each other.

View the original article here

Djokovic settles down to win at US Open