If it is an insurance issue(which I doubt), then don’t you think the Sabres, Eichel, or a 3rd party( agent, doctor, reporter) would’ve mentioned that? You’re grasping at straws to find some logic here
Absolutely not.
1.) DoHHS made it very clear a couple of years ago that Athletes and there medical records are protected under HIPAA. Media sources and doctors that comment on or spread information on players health or care that is not "Pursuant to the individuals authorization" are breaking federal law and in direct violation of HIPAA, and several news agencies breaking news that violates an individual's HIPAA privacy have found themselves on the losing end of large civil cases in recent years.
2.) The Eichel camp has no interest in the insurance implications going public because it undermines their goal.
3.) The Sabres have no interest in the Insurance implications going public because the narrative that the team is more worried about insurance covering the contract than they are about Jack being able to get the health treatment for his body that he wants is a PR nightmare, not to mention they would be in breach of HIPAA themselves if they did so.
4.) It is naive to think an insurance company would not have any interest in voiding a 34 million dollar payout if the inability of the player to play is a direct result of a medical procedure that is untested on NHL players that went sideways when there was a tried and true procedure available.
Honestly, I do not know who Eichels contract is insured through, but I have read that Loyd's of London has a clause that does not include experimental surgery.
If it was known that insurance would cover the contract after the procedure, I think that would have likely been reported. The overwhelming lack of coverage on the issue is a strong sign that it is a problem that is hiding behind HIPAA regulations.