DavidLeeLambert

Last time a troop I was involved with did a physical visit to a city council meeting together, yes, at least two leaders were present. One time I took three of my own children (one Scout, one Cub Scout, and one Girl Scout, at the time) to visit a city-council member and interview her. In that case, there was no other registered adult present, but I'm pretty sure there's an exception for a parent doing something with their own children. At present my wife is also a registered leader, so we can be the "two adults" together at any meeting or activity. But GSUSA has a stronger rule: the two adults need to be unrelated.

The claim form says: So if an adult "yells at a youth in frustration", I don't think it would count I think it might if that yelling included inappropriate sexual references. But the claims have not been vetted at this point, so there could potentially be some that don't actually allege anything that matches the definition on the claim form. If you're looking for for scenarios that might match the definition on the claim form but might result in a low-dollar judgement if they actually went before a jury, consider this one: The Scouts are having a sleep-over at someone's home, or are in a hotel room together on the road to a high-adventure trip. While the adults are (or the adult is, pre-YPT) sleeping, one of them unveils an R-rated movie and they watch it together. My kids' prior school district was looking for a new superintendent recently, and one of the candidates was turned down because of a couple of alleged incidents like that in his background. One was basically those facts, except that the boys were a sports team and he was their coach.

Other councils have been selling and transferring property over the past decades, maybe not so much over the past year. The surrounding grumbling has sometimes included nonspecific allegations that the transfer was not in good faith with prior donors and volunteers, or was not arm's-length, or was not the best possible deal for the Council, but I'm not aware of a case where a sale has actually been blocked by a court. My council, Michigan Crossroads, has four operating full camps and one operating cub-only camp, down from about a dozen across several pre-merger councils a decade or two ago. They still own some of the camp properties, with no public news of imminent sale, but also no public or foreseeable plans to reopen any time soon. A couple of the closed camps had already been partially sold off even before closure (one as a housing development, the other for gravel mining), and for at least one of them the Council was at least negotiating with a buyer before National filed for bankruptcy. The former council camp closest to my home had been donated by the Kiwanis Club on sufficiently restrictive conditions that, when it closed, it reverted to the donor. Or at least that's what everyone was told at Roundtable. The actual form of the transfer on county tax records is an "ARMS LENGTH" sale to an LLC for $408,000. The new owners advertise it as a suitable place for church retreats, family reunions and weddings. I've actually been "camping" (well, winter cabin stay) with a scout group on the property since that sale, and the new owners have done a good job of bringing the remaining buildings up to the standard they advertise, but the trails are in disrepair and are switfly disappearing (except where they've caused serious erosion).

A few possible variants on the above scenarios: Different Claimants get Different Amount per Severity: As in the Arizona Catholic Diocese settlement that @ThenNow posted, claimants may be assigned "points" by the Settlement Adminstrator, or the Plan could up-front divide abuse claimants into finer classes, by the severity of their injury, the nature of their abuser's relationship to Scouting, etc. Just a few examples off the top of my head: Multiple incidents of abuse against the victim versus just one Penetration versus something less invasive Abuser was a Scoutmaster versus an unregistered visitor Victim contracted an STD or has medically documented PTSD Abuser had other victims that the victim personally knew versus no other victims Victim suffered retaliation after attempt to report versus victim's report was taken and the abuser was immediately removed from Scouting and reported to the police and the community Or maybe the Plan could specify that payment of actual documented medical and counseling expenses gets priority, before any attorney fees to the claimant. Cutoff by severity: It may be that some claims will be disallowed entirely, perhaps even before voting. Compare "the Scoutmaster fondled me" to "the Scoutmaster's stepson's brother-in-law fondled me", or "the SPL showed an X-rated movie at a troop meeting" to "some other Scout's buddy showed an X-rated movie in the locker room at school". Chartered Organization contribution: As we've discussed already, some COs are defunct, a lot of COs themselves have very little assets, some might have a defense of governmental immunity, and some have already gone through bankruptcy or paid out some sort of global settlement. But some of them reportedly do have assets at least as big as the BSA or Local Councils, and some of them have entered appearances or claims in the case. But even if COs do join the settlement, they might do so only as to their own Scouts. So whether the average amount per claimant is $6k or $33k or $2.2 million, there could still be some claimants who only get $1k and others who get $10 million. But at least the amounts will be based on factors that are fair between claimants, and not on whose lawyer had the fastest car on the way to the courthouse.

For someone who actually looks, the Ineligible Volunteer Files already have cases where look-back liability could just as well be assigned to a local government entity. See for example https://documents.latimes.com/paul-j-wadaga/ (elementary school teacher for 24 years, molested at least 18 boys, was an ASM for 4 years of that but the Council asked around and didn't find any Scouts among his victims), https://documents.latimes.com/michael-c-spangler/ (assistant fire chief), and https://documents.latimes.com/eric-frank-feichtinger/ (police officer in a Child Sexual Abuse investigation unit). I don't think local government liability will be a significant factor in halting the trend to longer or weaker Statutes of Limitation. Nor will massive liability against the LDS church or against Catholic dioceses. Enough people are distrustful of government, and enough people consider those churches "the other". On the other hand, when the Methodist church on Main Street in every small town has to liquidate because it once chartered a Scout unit, some other unit in the Council had multiple cases of abuse, and every other related organization is bankrupt, defunct or has immunity, there may be more general political will to reintroduce or re-strengthen Statutes of Limitation. Unfortunately, if it gets to that point, it may be too late for BSA or the Local Councils.

I saw that too. It's worth mentioning that Stang's firm has promised to contribute 10% of their revenue from this case to the trust fund for victims. Still, that's roughly $10.00 per abuse claimant (less $1.00 promised contribution), or $1.00 per registered adult volunteer at the end of 2019, or $0.40 per registered youth at the end of 2019. Troops that collect monthly dues should tack on a quarter, a dime and a nickel to support him, and his firm is just one of many that are billing BSA.

Also watch out: that list included GSUSA and a lot of Girl Scout councils.

I haven't read through this entire thread. Has the motion in the link been ruled on? No. The attorneys spent the better part of 8 hours at the last omnibus hearing arguing that and another related motion (at $1000/hour for many of them, of course). Two of the experts were introduced and cross-examined. The judge gave no indication of if or when she would rule on them, and i haven't seen any ruling on them yet.

The Scoutmaster is right that he has the power to approve or disapprove service (for rank advancement, not for merit badges or Eagle), but if you're on the committee or a commissioner you should encourage him to use that power wisely and fairly. As a general rule, work on the actual service of another Scout's Eagle Project should count as service hours for any participating Scout. But I wouldn't expect the ceremony to count as service hours for the candidate; by that time, his project should be finished, approved, closed out, turned over. He should be done with it.

I was the CC of an LDS pack and a CM of the corresponding troop when their charters were allowed to expire. There was no "unit" bank account to write a check from (expenses were always reimbursed as incurred from the ward budget, except camp, where scouts sometimes raised some money for it the same year). I took a picture of the troop trailer (two flat tires and a flat spare, needed a paint job, contents had also been used for the Young Women program) and sent it to the Scout Executive who sent us the red form, asking if we should do anything with it. He never gave us any instructions about that. Then two other COs for units I was related to ended their charters. But in each case the unit leaders had a new CO identified already (the troop merging with anther troop, the pack switching to antother CO). In both cases the old CO allowed the unit to take its "stuff" and bank account, without any complaint that I heard about.

I agree 100% with your judgement that BSA's response was above-average and generally legally correct, by the standards of the time. But please remember that the bankruptcy proceeding is not "the" lawsuit. At the end of 2019, the BSA was the defendant in dozens of lawsuits (mostly abuse, a handful of wrongful-death, and the GSUSA trademark suit). The Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding allows the debtor (BSA) to invite everyone who has a claim to come forward and be treated equally. It's sort of a reverse lawsuit, the debtor comes to the court and says "I know (or at least guess) that I owe all these people money, but I need the court's help to make sure I pay them all fairly."

Or if some CO dropped its charter in 1980, it could still be on the hook for abuse that occurred in 1975. One bad-case (I can imagine worse) scenario I can imagine goes as follows: BSA (national) goes into Chapter 7, takes all the councils with it. Between pension liabilities, general secured debt, and the rock-bottom prices that most camp property will fetch when hundreds of camps are all offered at liquidation sales at the same time, the amount available to unsecured creditors (including all the abuse claimants) is $100MM or less. That means $1000 or less to each self-filing abuse claimant, and $600 less expenses to each represented abuse claimant. But the bankruptcy assigns some larger nominal value, say $200,000 or $1,000,000, to each abuse claim. And while wrapping up the Chapter 7 case, the entire IVF is made public, along with the list of every CO that was ever registered, and the personnel file of every council, and the identity of every organization that ever rented to or did business with a Council. Now various attorneys go after the COs, and anyone else who ever had any relationship with BSA. Every Catholic diocese, and hundreds of Methodist churches, and the LDS church, and various other churches, and several fraternal organizations, and a lot of local governments that were associated with Explorer posts... each gets named in a class-action lawsuit alleging joint and several liability for $950 billion, or some significant fraction thereof. Now there's a glut of former places of worship up for sale, and scattered municipal bankruptcies. But speaking of Statute of Limitations law changes, I note that the Future Claimants' Representative's bill for January [D.I.2257] includes line items such as the following: "Review statute of limitations analysis" "Teleconference with YCST team re: follow-up research on statute of limitations" "Research re: constitutional amendment requirements for reopening statutes of limitations" "Additional legal research and chart updates re: statute of limitations and constitutionality of window legislation in various states" "Research constitutionality of revival windows for claims with expired statutes of limitations in Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maine"

First of all, it's only 86,000 claims, because of all the duplicates (although a few late claims with good reason for the delay might still trickle in). I don't think anyone has publicly disclosed whether some of the "duplicate" claims are Omnis's fault, for assigning a new claim number to filings that were meant to be amendments to prior claims, or that were true exact duplicates submitted by the same person as a precaution (say someone did the electronic submission and also sent a hard copy in by certified mail the same day). But in a filing earlier this week one of the insurers' experts noted one case where one of the claimant lawyers had submitted three claims for the exact same person, two exact copies of each other, the third with an additional page, all on the same day. At oral argument yesterday, one of the claimant lawyers attacked the insurers' skepticism of the 95,000 number, by saying that BSA already has "8,000 proven abusers" and that it's generally known that sexual abusers typically have 100-200 victims apiece. From what I've seen in the public portion of the Ineligible Volunteer Files, I don't buy that. There are a few cases where the file contains a general reference to a dozen-odd potential victims. There was one file I read where the accused Scouter was a Silver Beaver recipient, and the file only identified one victim. It's conceivable in that case that the recorded victim was the case where he "finally got caught", and he'd been successfully scaring his prior victims into silence for many years. But there are other cases where the ineligible adult was placed in the file within months of first applying to be a scout leader, based on conduct that occurred before any affiliation with Scouting, and there is no mention of a victim in the IVF record, and the adult could not have actually had any contact with more than a handful of Scouts before the revocation of his registration. Another of the claimant lawyers claimed that they shouldn't have to respond to any discovery requests from the insurers because the insurers "have all this information" and were not sharing it with them. An insurer's lawyer said in his response on that motion that, in fact, they have no information. All they have is the IVF records that have been made public already, and this pile of 95,000 filings, without any other way to get more information about any of the claims than to attempt discovery. Regarding how much the insurance companies are able to pay... if I understand some of the notations in IVFs from the period of 1940-1975 or so, there was a long time when the annual registration fee per Scout or Scouter was $1.00 per year. It was $7.00 in the late '80s (when Donald Trump recorded his son's Cub Scout dues as a charitable contribution in that exact amount). I'd be surprised if the insurers collected anywhere near even a billion dollars in total premiums from the BSA during the 20th century, and BSA was big enough that it may have been a significant fraction of some of the insurers' premium receipts in some years. It may be that the insurers themselves are looking at bankruptcy if they have to start paying out a million dollars each on thousands (let alone tens of thousands) of abuse claims.

No, AIS is not a member of the TCC. The TCC is composed of nine abuse victims who have volunteered for that extra work (literally "volunteered", they aren't paid and don't expect to have their own claims treated any more favorably than anyone else's), and has a fiduciary duty to work for the benefit of all abuse claimants. AIS is Koznoff, Van Arsedale and one other lawyer. There's also the "Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice", the "CASJ" or "Coalition" for short. The CASJ seems to have started as the AIS members plus some other lawyers, but back in September, when one of the insurers first wanted to depose Koznoff and Van Arsedale, they "withdrew" from the Coalition. Currently the Coalition has a lawyer (but not one of the lawyers who "make up" the Coalition) who gets to participate in mediation. But the Coalition "members" are abuse claimants, who apparently got e-mail from their lawyers that said basically "I'm putting you in this Coalition, if you don't like that go find a different lawyer, and by the way if you do that you have to pay me my fees that you owe so far". Not in so many words in the e-mail itself, but that's one reading of the e-mail itself together with notices on the lawyers' websites, retention agreements, and everything else they say their clients agreed to. That may be part of the reason for the 10,000 duplicate claims: AIS and the Coalition both purporting to represent the same clients.

So the news article doesn't mention Scouting by name, but I think the BSA is clearly one of the "other religious and youth-serving organizations" mentioned... Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Pa. House leaders plan emergency fix on abuse lawsuits after filing error https://www.post-gazette.com/news/faith-religion/2021/02/04/Lawmakers-emergency-amendment-harrisburg-sex-abuse-lawsuits-Catholic-grand-jury/stories/202102040148

The insurance companies dropped a couple more motions on the case docket on Friday. The first one, "HARTFORD AND CENTURY’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER (I) AUTHORIZING CERTAIN RULE 2004 DISCOVERY AND (II) GRANTING LEAVE FROM LOCAL RULE 3007-1(f) TO PERMIT THE FILING OF SUBSTANTIVE OMNIBUS OBJECTIONS" [D.I.1972], asks for an order allowing them to serve discovery on 1400 abuse claimants that they have already randomly selected, and then depose up to 100 claimants from that group seeking more information. Interesting excerpts from the motion and attachments... [a page with examples is redacted] [Likewise for s. and t.] The second one, "INSURERS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZINGRULE 2004 DISCOVERY OF CERTAIN PROOFS OF CLAIM" [D.I.1975], asks permission to conduct discovery against and depose certain law firms and certain claims-processing firms that appear to be connected to large batches of claims.

I don't think the LDS church forfeited the standard insurance/indemnification that any other CO would have had by ending it's relationship at the end of 2019. Charter agreements were always per-year. That said, the LDS church has been self-insured in other areas, and LDS units in my council were told not to pay the council "insurance fee", relying instead on the church's other activity insurance. But the hundreds of Methodist churches who put in defensive claims did so on the basis of indemnification in the charter agreement, not an insurance contract; I don:t see why the LDS church couldn't make the same argument.

No idea whether he has was ever a Scout, but something to think about if anyone suggests a service-project of picking up trash is "too easy" or "not of lasting value"... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/behind-viral-photo-rep-andy-kim-cleaning-midnight-after-riots-n1253519

First Class requirement 4a reads, The pre-2016 First Class requirement 2 was worded pretty much the same. Until the end of 2020, a modified version of the requirement is allowed due to COVID-19, Both versions talk about "requires measuring the height and/or width of designated items". I know there are ways to do that; I remember reading through the chapter about that in the Boy Scout Handbook I used in the early '90s, and there are even sections on that in the 1948 Handbook and the 1910 Handbook. But if I'm helping design an orienteering course, how can I make it "require" measuring height or width? Should the length of one leg, or even all legs, of the course be written in terms of a prominent landmark? ("Go four water-tower-lengths at 175 degrees. Go two water-tower-lengths at 85 degrees. ...") Do the "designated items" need to be things that require such indirect measurement? Or could the Scout measure the width of a dry ditch by walking across it? But once again, how would the orienteering course "require" it?

My sons' troop has gone through several phases over the course of the pandemic: Before March, it was on the news but we weren't thinking about it, not too worried about the bankruptcy either. We were preparing to merge in a troop chartered by a church that was closing, planning to spend a week at council Summer Camp during the summer, planning to work on the Cycling merit badge as soon as the weather got warm and finish it by the end of summer. In the week when our state went into lockdown, things got crazy. The COR posted to Facebook a terse statement that activities would be suspended indefinitely. Meanwhile the SM texted the adult-leader group-chat that in-person meetings would be suspended, but it wasn't clear that they had coordinated with each other or were in agreement. After about 3 weeks of lockdown, the Council organized a couple of virtual meetings; a week later, the troop started virtual meetings again. We switched back and forth between Zoom and WebEx. In September, we started in-person meetings (mostly outside) and in-person day activities again, no camping. We did a 5-mile hike at a nearby walking-trail, a tour of a decommissioned U.S. Navy ship in another county, and a geocaching hunt at a nearby nature center. Then in mid-November, in the midst of a second surge in COVID-19 statistics (even worse than spring for new cases per day, but thankfully a little better for deaths and hospitalizations), we halted in-person meetings again. I think the key is to change the argument from "we can't meet, and here are all the reasons why we can't" to "we have a goal of meeting, and so we'll address each obstacle appropriately; and even if a meeting falls through, we maintain communication somehow". Sure, some Zoom meetings can be lame or disorganized. Try a different meeting technology. Prepare for the meetings better beforehand: have a clear agenda, have slides ready, distribute hands-on materials beforehand by mail or socially distanced dropoff, use interactive tools like Kahoot! For opening exercises, I put together a slide deck with a flag, the Scout Oath and Law, and the Outdoor Code. For a hike, distribute maps and an exact itinerary electronically beforehand. Use FRS radios to stay in touch (cell phones as backup), and spread out instead of walking in a tight group. But if a large contingent of boys wants to be more active and only the SPL and ASPL are just full of excuses, perhaps it's time to encourage the boys to call for an SPL election. (If your troop has a tradition of fixed terms for SPL, maybe look into electing an "active SPL" while the SPL is AWOL.) A scout should be Courteous by respecting the reasonable desires of others in his community that he wear a mask and generally practice social distancing. He should be Obedient by strictly following all applicable laws, regulations, and BSA, Council and CO policies. But he should be Thrifty by actually using the program resources that are available to him, and Brave by being willing to try new ways of meeting, even if that's inconvenient or uncomfortable.

I'm an EPrep MBC, and when I first heard "make masks", I thought "that's not a real Emergency Preparedness project!" too, but when you quote the requirement it makes sense. The one thing I'd still watch out for would be that whatever the scout takes part in, it should be a "project", something planned and with tasks allocated to participants, something with measures of completion and success, not just an "activity" where people individually do something that may be related to an emergency. That doesn't mean the Scout has to make the plan, or direct its execution. Making the plan would be Personal Management requirement 9, and directing a project (assuming it was otherwise suitable, he directed it alone, had all the approvals lined up, etc.) would be an Eagle Project. For E Prep 7a, he just needs to "take part", and it has to be an "emergency" project, either responding to a disaster or crisis, or, I would argue, preparing for one. Likewise, requirement 7b says that the Scout should "Prepare a written plan". It doesn't say that it needs to be a good plan, or that the Scout has to present it to the troop, or his patrol, or get it approved by his Scoutmaster; just "a written plan". But if the plan includes a way of establishing communication during an emergency, it might make sense for the troop to practice just that communication portion, as a drill; and that communication could probably be done in a socially distanced or even all-online way. (Although a resilient communication should probably include contingency plans of radio, phone, and even physical travel as well.) In any case, I would encourage a Scout writing a plan (or explaining his troop's existing plan) for 7b to include COVID-safety considerations in the plan; and if the plan covers other disasters but not a new or worsening pandemic, to augment it.

Well, GSUSA and 4-H don't have exactly the same Youth Protection program, but from what I can see it's similar in each case. See the "Clover Safe Notes", in particular #99 "Youth Protection Safe Environments". And youth programs run directly by a public school or municipality might have a defense of governmental immunity, or more sympathy from a jury, as compared to a private program organized by like-minded potential volunteers. But I'll agree that smaller organizations are at grave risk. Consider the case of the Boston Children's Therater (Boston Globe article; WBUR article). Public disclosure of allegations made via anonymous e-mail (not even a lawsuit) against the artistic director caused an immediate decline in donations; which caused it to cancel the season and declare bankruptcy; and it seems to no longer exist as an organization.

Yes, Friday's docket report contains new motions to appear for Jessica Boelter [D.I.1533], Mike Andolina [D.I.1535], and Matt Linder [D.I.1535] with the new firm, and orders granting their admission [D.I.'s 1536–1538].

So we've seen reports that the "Coalition" has names of over 28,000 alleged victims that it purports to represent. But a court filing [D.I.1505] on behalf of the TCC a week ago shows that the actual number of submitted abuse claims so far is still below 6,000: The Local Council omissions I can believe. I don't even remember my Unit Number from when I was a Boy Scout (thought I did, but then my dad handed a uniform down to me and it had a different number on it), and I remember hearing my leaders talk about how we were in a certain council because that's where the other nearby same-CO units were registered, but actually no one in the unit lived inside that council's boundaries. Whichever one it was, both councils (along with several others) were subsequently merged into an almost-statewide council that doesn't retain either one's name. The lack of information about chartered organizations is harder to square with the assumption that the claims are 100% sincere, complete and well-founded.

Well, there is one (former) CO that allegedly had $100 billion in a rainy-day fund consisting of liquid investments at the end of 2019. But the next man in line to be Prophet is a former State Supreme Court Judge, and that church owns a law school. If I were an abuse-claimant lawyer I'd be worried that the LDS church would use its assets as a litigation warchest and fight for many years without ever giving out a penny. From my random perusal of the Ineligible Volunteer Files that were made public, I don't see a lot of cases with obvious LDS involvement; and I wouldn't be surprised if there are microfilmed records in a vault in Utah of the registration information of all LDS units and all LDS volunteers in any unit or other position, which might actually disprove any LDS connection to a lot of the claims. Then there are Catholic-chartered units. Indeed, patterns of abuse by Catholic priests were a major factor in the state-law changes that led to this bankruptcy. But over a dozen dioceses have already filed for bankruptcy, and several have already emerged from bankruptcy or executed a purported global settlement; while there are a lot more that haven't (yet), it may be that the ones that already have are either the biggest ones, or the ones with the most actual liability, or both. The ones that remain are more likely to have very few assets, or to have actually run a tight ship and be able to prove that they were not complicit in any pattern of abuse by BSA volunteers, covered up by other BSA volunteers and employees. That leaves thousands of other COs, past and present, generally smaller. A lot of those are single-congregation churches, perhaps with a historic building in a desirable location, perhaps with an antique organ or some first-class sound equipment, or perhaps not. My sons' troop meets at a church that's bordered by commercial property on a major street to the west, a fire station to the south, residential to the east, and a small park (just a soccer field) to he north. Maybe it could be forced into liquidation and sell the building for $500,000; or maybe it has insurance that would cover historic abuse claims. The lowest-numbered troop in my area meets at a nondenominational church right across the street from a college campus, in a hundred-year-old or more building. There's a $100 million new high-rise building only a block away, so maybe the church's land would be worth $1 million at fire-sale. But that church also hosts Girl Scout troops, and runs a day-care, and hosts performances by the area's stringed-instrument club, and probably helps the community in other ways as well. Other units were chartered by organizations that may have ceased to exist. With an LDS ward or Catholic parish, it should be possible to find a successor that covers the same geographical area where the victim lived, and in any case the parent organization remains liable, but for "Pastor Ryan's Whole Faith Bible Church" that chartered a Troop and Pack from 1972 to 1982, the Pastor may be dead, the building may have changed hands twice after he retired and now be a brewpub or marijuana dispensary, and the five congregants from that period who are still alive may be attending five different churches. And some units are chartered by the parent-teacher organizations of schools; the current CO for my younger children's Pack is the Parent Council of their public elementary school. The way I understand it, the Parent Council is a legally separate organization from the school. Its main annual fundraiser has a goal of $8000. At the hourly rates of many of the lawyers and even other professionals in the case, that gets eaten up by a single hour of a hearing, or maybe a half-day of deposition. So suppose Mr. Kosnoff finds ten men who each say they showed up to a pack meeting between 1975 and 1985 and were abused at the first meeting and the Cubmaster must have not turned in their registration because he was covering up their abuse. Suppose further that he gets a judgement against the Parent Council for the $16000 it still has in the bank. They each get $960, he pays $4230 plus interest to the company that generated his Facebook leads, he gets about $2000 left over for gas-money for his yacht. But if the Parent Council is legally part of the school, that gets into a defense of governmental immunity, and angry teacher's unions whose pensions are at danger, and angry taxpayers...the more vaguely-related parties the claimants try to pull in, the more risk that they might have their claims closely scrutinized, or cause the trend of statute-of-limitations extensions to be reconsidered, and also gives the debtors and primary insurers additional defenses that they were not primarily liable.