By James Caldwell, Torch assistant editor

The death of WWE wrestler Owen Hart is at the center of former CEO Linda McMahon's U.S. Senate campaign in Connecticut this week with the opposing Democratic party raising concerns on WWE's talent contracts. The concern is a "death clause" in the contracts releasing WWE from liability in the event of a wrestler's death.

The opposition party is raising the concerns as a means of examining McMahon's record as WWE CEO, which is essentially her only professional qualification for running for Senator.

"She has a record of putting her profits first," claimed Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo, who organized a conference call with reporters to discuss the issue. "Making her wrestlers sign the contracts, including the death clauses, is pretty much a part of that."

The point of contention for DiNardo is WWE's claim last week that WWE had "never exercised" the "death clause" option to avoid liability in the event of a contracted wrestler's death.

DiNardo brought onto the conference call Yale Law Professor Bob Solomon to analyze the clause and the legal issues in-play stemming from Owen Hart's accidental death at the WWE Over the Edge 1999 PPV.

Solomon stated that WWE has indeed exercised the "death clause" before. He brought up WWE's counter-suit filed against Martha Hart, the widow of Owen Hart, where WWE exercised the right to avoid liability following Owen's death.

WWE's defense of including the "death clause" in their talent contracts is that it's standard for an independent contractor. The issue of WWE classifying wrestlers as independent contracts led to Professor Solomon arguing that he does not believe the classification would hold up in a court of law based on it appearing that WWE treats its wrestlers as employees.

Solomon brought up key issues that WWE controls the dates and locations wrestlers are to perform, and the contract has a "right of exclusivity" where a wrestler cannot perform for another promotion on their own accord while under contract. There is also the 90-day no-compete clause where a wrestler cannot perform for another televised wrestling promotion for 90 days following WWE's termination of the contract.

"My argument is that I don't think this was legitimately an independent contractor clause," Solomon said regarding Owen Hart's talent contract.

Solomon claimed that even though wrestlers assume the risk of job performance as "independent contracts," they, or their families, should be able to sue in the case of negligence even with WWE's written contracts containing the "death clause." He cited precedent that courts have over-ruled "death clauses" if negligence is proved.

"This is a classic example of an employer who is doing their best to get out of what are state-defined responsibilities," he claimed. "For one thing, they're getting out of paying taxes because they're not paying Social Security, they're not paying worker's compensation, and they're not paying unemployment compensation. More important, they're trying to avoid the public policy of worker's compensation and what our obligations are to employees."

Solomon added: "I believe there is a statutory scheme that protects employees and that WWE has gone to great lengths to take itself out of that scheme, I think in a way that would not stand up in a court law.

"And given the extent to which they have gone - not only death, but to classify people as independent contractors to get around the protections a regular employee has - is not only illegal, but I believe immoral."

WWE spokesman Robert Zimmerman addressed the issue in a report filed by the New Haven Register newspaper.

Zimmerman cited a federal judge ruling in WWE's favor in 2008 when Scott Levy (Raven), Christopher Klucsarits (deceased former WWE wrestler Chris Kanyon), and Michael Sanders challenged WWE classifying them as independent contractors.

In that case, the judge's ruling was more related to the wrestlers not establishing a clear complaint or specific damages they suffered as a result of the independent contract classification, not so much giving WWE a "pass" on their talent contracts.

Caldwell's Analysis: I never thought the independent contractor vs. employee classification in WWE would reach a Yale Law professor, but it's interesting to hear the issue raised to media members in Connecticut covering the U.S. Senate race. We'll see what comes of it after plenty of issues were raised in this discussion.

Audio: Full audio of the conference call can be heard below.

We suggest these recent related articles...

WWE NEWS: Superstars SPOILERS - Results from Chicago Raw

WWE NETWORK: Monday, Oct. 12 Schedule - Raw pre-show, Sting DVD preview

WWE NEWS: Lana & Rusev reportedly engaged - follow the interesting 2015 timeline