Mitchell Starc is taking the legal route to get $1.53 million of his IPL contract paid out after he failed to play any game for his franchise Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR), according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Starc was injured in last year’s ill-fated Test series against South Africa. According to the report, Starc filed a lawsuit in the Victorian County Court last week against the insurers of his lucrative deal to play for KKR.
Starc, who is represented by Mills Oakley lawyers, is suing a syndicate of Lloyd’s of London, the insurance market where coverage can be bought for unique circumstances, the report added.
The writ states Starc paid a premium of $97,920 to be covered between February 27 and March 31 in 2018, when the tournament ended.
Pain in right calf
Going by Starc, he started feeling pain in his right calf while bowling during the second Test in Port Elizabeth.
“While bowling on uneven footmarks on a worn wicket, the plaintiff suffered a sudden onset of pain in his right calf.
“The pain worsened over the next few bowling sessions and during the next Test match,” the writ said.
“Ultimately, the injury resulted in the plaintiff missing the final Test match of the tour and him being listed by the Australian Cricketers Association and Cricket Australia as injured by reason of tibial bone stress. The injury that the plaintiff suffered was a grade three tibial injury which involved a fracture in his right tibial bone.”
Starc, the report said, was put through a full medical by the insurers in which a number of exclusions were included in the contract for old injuries.
Starc, who is still recuperating from injury and is in a race against time to regain full fitness ahead of the World Cup, got off well in the South Africa tour taking nine wickets in the first Test before struggling with injuries.
“The parties have exchanged correspondence about the plaintiff’s claim which culminated in a final response from the defendant’s representative in the form of an email sent on November 22, 2018,” the writ said.
“That email confirmed the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to the total disablement benefit.”