Insurance company Lloyd’s of London has reportedly agreed to pay the majority of Kanye West's $10 million claim against them

By Maria Pasquini
February 15, 2018 05:05 PM
Advertisement
Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic

Kanye West has reportedly settled his $10 million lawsuit against insurance company Lloyd’s of London over canceling his Saint Pablo tour in 2016. The cancellation occurred shortly before the rapper’s subsequent hospitalization for exhaustion.

According to TMZ, the insurance company has agreed to pay the majority of the 40-year-old’s claim. Representatives for the rapper have yet to respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.

West originally filed the lawsuit in August of 2017, about eight months after canceling the tour dates, claiming the insurance company had stalled on paying out the “multi-million dollar claim” stemming from the canceled concerts.

According to court documents obtained by PEOPLE at the time, West’s lawyers claimed that the insurers made their client go to great lengths to prove his mental breakdown was legitimate and that they were hunting “for some contrived excuse not to pay.”

“Nor have they provided anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums,” stated West’s team in the filing.

RELATED VIDEO: Kanye Was Unable to ‘Snap Back’ from Erratic Episodes Without Kim by His Side: Source

Lloyd’s of London later hit back with a countersuit claiming they were not liable and had “no duty” to pay the sum.

According to court documents filed in August of 2017 and obtained by PEOPLE at the time, syndicates of Lloyd’s of London addressed several insurance policy exclusions relating to a preexisting physical or psychological condition, possession of illegal drugs, prescription drugs not taken as medically prescribed, and the consumption of alcohol rendering the insured unfit to “perform contracted duties.”

Although the insurance company chose not to reveal what they found “in order to protect the privacy of Mr. West from public disclosure of details of his private life,” they were seeking declaratory relief that they “have no duty to indemnify” West’s company, Very Good Touring, Inc.