DECORY BRYANT SUES UGA
Decory Bryant plays cornerback for UGA. Decory Bryant plays himself into NFL draft status. Decory Bryant breaks neck (!?!?). Decory Bryant sues UGA for the potential earnings he missed due to his injury, earnings he might have recouped had Bryant not had shit luck and broken his neck the same week he was applying for the insurance policy. (We would guess that a broken neck = preexisting condition.)
Considering the number of lawyers and wannabe lawyers lurking in the readership of this blog, we now open the proceedings for the day, Justice Swindle presiding. Does UGA owe Bryant squat? Besides a lifetime of free rubber chicken dinners, breezy jobs at alumni-owned businesses, and all the other pleasant benefits of being a college football notable living in their home state?
We’re taking arguments below. Note: by reading us you’re automatically in contempt of court.
Judge Mathis presiding. Mr. Barnett, please sit down and be quiet.
1
Did he really have a shot in the pros? he probably would have suffered the same injury there or perhaps even worse.
This sounds a lot like hindsight is 20/20 to me: “Well I thought about getting insurance this one time over the summer….” Still, he probably has a case.
Comment by Lion4Life — February 13, 2025 @ 10:34 am
2
As someone thinking of going to law school, I’ll put on my amateur hat and say . . . I’d really need to read the language in his LOI and on his scholarship acceptance. My guess is that there is plenty of language in that to protect any school from indemnity for injuries during your athletic career.
The precedence here is very dangerous as well if he wins. Players could open up a host of claims for lost wages from this and not just for missing out on an NFL paycheck. Especially considering the myriad number of ailments that players can suffer after their playing days.
Hopefully UGA fights this and doesn’t settle. It could go in a very bad direction.
Comment by JacketDan — February 13, 2025 @ 10:37 am
3
This case has been going on for a while now, actually. The first time I read about it was at least a year and a half ago.
On the merits, I thought Bryant’s claim had already survived summary judgment, so it may have at least some weight behind it.
My understanding of Bryant’s allegations is that Bryant filled out the insurance paperwork and gave it to UGA, who dicked around and didn’t file it on time. Then he gets hurt. No litigator, but it’d seem that the claim would be under some form of breach of contract or fiduciary duty.
I’d be surprised if they didn’t settle the case though. If the UGA athletic dept. did anything sloppy or screwy, and it came out in a trial, it’d be very very bad publicity. Y’think Phil Fulmer wouldn’t use Decory’s situation when recruiting someone UGA also wants?
Comment by LD — February 13, 2025 @ 10:38 am
4
Here’s a link from last January with more of the details.
Comment by LD — February 13, 2025 @ 10:53 am
5
Thanks LD, that makes a lot of difference in my opinion of the case. I figured there had to be more facts involved or athletes would have been suing years ago in similar situations.
Comment by JacketDan — February 13, 2025 @ 10:57 am
6
I’m not a lawyer, but sometimes I play one on the Internet… That being said, I agree with LD. Contrary to JacketDan’s statement, this doesn’t sound like a case to decide if UGA owes Bryant money because he got hurt wearing their colors. He is suing the university because they dropped the ball on filing his policy. It seems like the trainer could have at least walked the papers into the locker room before the game (it was, after all, a home game). Then, on top of that, the UGA athletic department fails to set up a trust fund for the kid… what did they think he’d do… he feels used and lied to. And, according to the papers, he was.
I say sue’m all! And negatively recruit them to death with this story!
Comment by LSUFan — February 13, 2025 @ 10:58 am
7
prothro’s going to make millions.
Comment by adam — February 13, 2025 @ 11:01 am
8
I agree with you now LSUFan that I understand a little more about the case. He probably has a solid case if he can proove that the assistant AD was negligent in filing the forms in a timely manner.
Comment by JacketDan — February 13, 2025 @ 11:05 am
9
Although you can’t see, there’s 8 paragraphs of “fine print” somewhere near the bottom of Mark Richt’s billboard-like forehead. UGA wins on a technicality.
Comment by PSUrob — February 13, 2025 @ 11:33 am
10
Orson - his side of the story isn’t the whole story. He simply never signed his paperwork on time. It’s got nothing to do with Hoke. It isn’t like Hoke had the signed docs on his desk.
Additionally, there are rumors that UGA has offered $250,000 and he won’t take it b/c he wants more. There are further rumors that he had a pre-existing neck injury from HS.
If he didn’t sign the paperwork and had a pre-existing condition, then the $250k is a gift and he should take it.
Hoke sucked, but this wasn’t totally his fault. It’s Decory’s. The story is really sad. I wish he’d take the help that we’ve extended and move on if the signature stories are correct.
If not, then I hope he gets what he deserves.
pwd
Comment by paulwesterdawg — February 13, 2025 @ 11:38 am
11
I think this sounds like a promissory estoppel situation but I haven’t looked at anything Contract related since my first year of law school. The requirements are that (1) A promise must have been made - The question is not whether the promisor actually intended, but whether the promisee was justified in believing a promise was made, based on the promisor’s utterances and conduct. Promise must be voluntary and deliberately made; (2) Reliance Must be Foreseeable – There must be a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on part of promisee. Promisor is held to a standard of reasonableness, whether or not he actually intended the promise to be relied on; (3) Reliance Must Actually Occur: a) Promise must have induced such action or forbearance – There must be cause and effect between the promise and the promisee’s conduct. Loss or expense incurred must have been induced by promise. b) The reliance must be justified – The promisee’s response to the promise must be reasonable. The response must have been reasonable from a person in the promisee’s position. There is a close link between the factors that determine the promisor’s accountability and the promisee’s justifiable reliance; (4) Reliance Must Have Produced Injustice – Injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. Promisee must have suffered some specific and measurable loss by relying on the promise. The remedy may be limited as justice requires. Since consideration is absent, it’s safeguards are missing. Consequently, the court should weigh the lack or presence of formality and the apparent deliberateness of the commitment in deciding whether the equities favor enforcement, and if so, to what extent
Comment by tbmd96 — February 13, 2025 @ 11:58 am
12
Hey, we didn’t know-that’s why we asked.
Comment by Orson Swindle — February 13, 2025 @ 12:06 pm
13
I haven’t read the specifics of the case, but just on the basic fact pattern here is what I think.
Bryant is probably arguing UGA had an ethical obligation to obtain the insurance policy. They knew there was substantial risk, etc. If UGA agreed to setup the policy for him, they are acting as his agent in the transaction and if there was negligence involved with UGA “dicking” around and whatnot, as Bryant’s agent UGA should be held liable.
UGA’s basic argument concerning the insurance policy could have been the assumption of the risk doctrine. Everybody knows that football is a dangerous sport and Bryant was assuming this risk everytime he strapped on his helmet. Because of this common knowledge and this assumption, Bryant was solely responsible for obtaining the policy. That is unless UGA f’ed up and took formal steps to become his agent, then breached their fiduciary duty by not carrying out appropriate steps to take care of the policy, which probably explains why they have offered the settlement sum. UGA should have taken that policy straight to an insurance broker, paid them a fee, and assigned agency responsibility to them, so that when Bryant broke his neck their malpractice insurnace or whatever would have taken care of it.
Comment by Ritty — February 13, 2025 @ 12:16 pm
14
These big words are not helping my monday morning hangover
Comment by tommy — February 13, 2025 @ 12:19 pm
15
No kidding…
Comment by Orson Swindle — February 13, 2025 @ 12:20 pm
16
It would seem that the only damages a case like this could result in would be the value of the lost insurance policy- I don’t think that you can reward Decory money based on a coulda/shoulda/woulda with the NFL, while the amount of the insurance policy could certainly be posited. Sorry if this repeats any of what was said before, because I’m too lazy to read all of it. And too stupid to understand it.
Comment by italiangator — February 13, 2025 @ 12:28 pm
17
Well yeah, the amount of the policy would be the only damages awarded in the case…unless there was serious negligence or somet other factor on the part of UGA where punitive damages would be deemed necessary by a jury to fuck over UGA…AUburn style.
Comment by Ritty — February 13, 2025 @ 12:40 pm
18
This is classic he said-she said, or in this case, he said-he said. Bryant claims that Wilder told him there would be insurance papers to sign, one day prior to his injury. Wilder claims he said he’d merely investigate into several different brokers about obtaining said policy.
Without some sort of paper trail to back up his claims, Bryant will have a difficult time in proving his case. As the plaintiff in this action, Bryant has the burden of proof (Wilder “more likely than not” said the papers would be there the next day).
Mere allegations that Wilder said certain things will not carry the day in a court of law. Even if that court is located in Georgia.
This is essentially a negligence action, meaning Bryant must prove that (a) UGA owed a duty (having the papers in his locker 24 hours after allegedly saying it would be there); (b) UGA breached that duty (paper wasn’t there); (c) Damages occurred (broken neck/lost millions/$500K policy oughta’ cover that); and (d) damage was caused by breach.
The fact this case has survived summary judgment leads me to beleive that there is more to it then one can glean from the blog entries. Bottom line is that this case will settle, like 95% of personal injury cases, if for no other reason than to avoid bad press.
Comment by Philly Gator — February 13, 2025 @ 12:52 pm
19
I have to agree with Philly Gator and whoever else mentioned the case survived summary judgment.
For you non-lawyers, summary judgment is a motion filed by the defense saying, essentially, “yeah those facts are true, but so what?” In other words, the law does not support a cause of action based on those alleged facts if we presume those facts are true for the basis of the motion.
If the case got over summary judgment than the issue becomes one of fact-is what the plaintiff claims to be true actually true? That means a jury-with all its biases and prejudices and stupidity-gets to hear the case. Those of us in the business frequently say-and I told someone this not 2 hours ago-you never know what a jury is going to do.
So now the game of chicken begins. At this point the plaintiff will push it as far as they can until they think the defense won’t give up any more.
It should be interesting to watch.
Comment by Spaceheater — February 13, 2025 @ 1:59 pm
20
Spaceheater, your description sounds more like a 12(b)(6) motion.
Comment by Free Logan Young — February 13, 2025 @ 2:11 pm
21
Law geeks, unite!
Comment by Orson Swindle — February 13, 2025 @ 2:13 pm
22
NERDS!
Comment by Free Logan Young — February 13, 2025 @ 2:14 pm
23
I’ll go one nerdier… Space heater actually described the standard on a motion to dismiss, which looks only at the alleged facts. For summary judgment purposes, they look only at the facts that are not in dispute (thus He said, she said cases tend to survive summary judgment if they survived a motion to dismiss) and decide based on those facts whether the cause of action is supportable. A judge may sometimes look at disputed facts if she finds there is no way a reasonable jury would believe one particular side trying to dispute the facts, but ordinarily any factual dispute will get you past summary judgment. What is interesting though is that (Based soley on the comments in this post and no additional reading) it seems the big issue to me would be what duty Georgia had in obtaining his policy and that would be a clear issue for summary judgment.
Comment by Stranko Montana — February 13, 2025 @ 2:24 pm
24
And we pay you for this crap? The world’s second oldest racket, and nowhere near as beloved as the first oldest, though you probably won’t catch AIDS from being involved in legal proceedings (though you may wish you had when they’re done.)
Comment by Orson Swindle — February 13, 2025 @ 2:28 pm
25
Let me add that I think the case got past summary judgment. I’m not exactly sure. And also, in the event of a he said/she said, at summary judgment the court shall give weight to the allegations of the nonmoving party. So it doesn’t mean that Bryant definitely has a case, if I wasn’t clear before. It just means that there might be issues a jury would have to determine. And I think that the stories in the media right now are pure negotiating tactics. None of this is really “news” right now, so there must be some reason for it to hit the media again. Like, a stall in settlement discussions. But again, I have no knowledge of what’s going on here.
Comment by LD — February 13, 2025 @ 3:48 pm
26
tbmd96, I understand your rationale for thinking he could have a breach of contract claim invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that seems like quite a reach to me. Among other things, I’m not sure how Bryant could claim he detrimentally relied on a promise from UGA. I have yet to see him claim that he thought the insurance issue had been settled in any legally binding way, and that he relied in some way on that belief.
Comment by MSR — February 13, 2025 @ 5:03 pm
27
12 1 b?!? Goddamn that sounds like Federal Civil Procedure! I vaguely remember that from the recesses of my memory.
I’m just simple DUI defense attorney and had always been under the impression that a motion for summary judgment was the same thing as what we in the criminal realm call a motion to dismiss.
I’m wrong. So shoot me. I stay out of civil courtrooms. They scare me.
Comment by Spaceheater — February 13, 2025 @ 6:48 pm
28
Does it matter the injury occurred during a game with a non-BCS opponenet, UAB? Since non-BCS teams are irrelevant in today’s college football world, did he truly get injured? Just a thought from a Blazer.
Comment by dragonash — February 13, 2025 @ 9:16 pm
29
Good point, dragonash. UAB remains irrelevant.
Comment by Free Logan Young — February 14, 2025 @ 10:31 am
30
We haven’t been around long enough to become irrelevant. Your team, the Bammers, have and are.
Comment by dragonash — February 14, 2025 @ 7:11 pm
31
I AM VERY CLOSE TO THIS CASE AND CAN TELL YOU THAT HOKE WILDER DID EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. IF YOU DIDN’T KNOW, INSURANCE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ALL THE PLAYERS. THE PLAYER MUST BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE A FUTURE AT THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL. THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA IS NOT WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION, IT IS THE INSURANCE COMPANY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ONLY THING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SIGNED BY DECORY WAS A CONSENT FORM THAT WOULD ALLOW THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF HE HAD A FUTURE AS A PROFESSIONAL OR NOT.
Comment by BLYTHEDAWG — February 16, 2025 @ 2:06 pm
32
LOOK I HAVE KNOWN DECORY BRYANT ALL OF MY LIFE, AND HE WAS AND STILL IS A GREAT PERSON.
I WAS HIS HIGHSCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAMATE AT EDGEWATER HIGHSCHOOL IN ORLANDO, FL ALONG WITH NFL STEELER (OT) MAX STARKS.
DECORY NEVER BROKE HIS NECK IN HIGHSCHOOL LIKE SOMEONE HAS POSTED, HE BROKE HIS ARM IN THE 11TH GRADE IN A GAME -VS- WINTER PARK HIGHSCHOOL DURING A TOUCHDOWN RUN HE HAD JUST MADE!
SO WHOEVER SAID THIS IS LYING.
CALL EDGEWATER HIGH AND LAKEHIGHLAND PREP IN ORLANDO, FL FOR YOUR INFO.
Comment by CORWIN — October 3, 2025 @ 4:23 am
33
Every so-called lawyer and wannabe lawyers sound profoundly stupid on this case. But I guess being a former dawg and friend of bryant, Im too close to this case. #1 bryant had a policy with an insurer of 500k. #2 Wilder is in charge of EVERY fb athlete’s post college career paper work. Thats what he got paid for. Once bryant and the insurer settled up, bryant signed the papers a WEEK before his injury( i now bc i was there)!! They sat on Hoke Wilder’s desk that whole week bc he never ASSUMED that bryant could get hurt anytime soon. And you wonder why bryant has a case….. Its called a paper-trail bitches and it all adds up!! Thats why bryant will win. It has nothing to do with Richt or the football staff, just the administrative’s negligence. Dont forget that UGA had settled outta court with David Jacobs also( something to tink about) And this is coming from an insider of the 13-1 SEC champs. Getcha facts straight
Comment by friend — January 16, 2026 @ 12:04 pm