Scouting, liability and being sued

[FScouter]

Agreeing with nldscout. Whether accident insurance or liability insurance, not following BSA rules does NOT void coverage.

 

Following rules matters big time at the end of the year when the underwriter decides whether or not to renew the policy and what the rates will be. They want minimal risk and work with BSA to minimize risk. One way is to make sure units don't do stupid activities like sky-diving at low altitude or Cub Scouts target shooting with handguns in the Cubmaster's back yard. Filing a tour permit helps weed out stupid activities, and the underwriter will want to see evidence that tour permits are being filed. Following the rules in the G2SS is another big factor in reducing risk.

 

When the underwriter is satisfied the risk level is acceptable, he writes a policy and sets a premium.

 

Consider your personal auto liability insurance policy. Your insurance company looks at your driving record, experience, and claims against you. If the risk is acceptable they write a policy and set a rate. If you accidently bump the car in front of you and he sues, you're covered. If you run a red light and cause an accident, you're covered. If you get drunk, run a red light at 85 MPH and run over an old lady, you're still covered.

 

At the end of the year, your insurance company may or may not decide to renew your policy. Same with BSA.

[seabear]

CNYScouter,

I know nothing of your DE, as per his training, or his knowledge of the American Legion, or VFW's, and of his knowledge of Sea Scouting.

I do believe he needs to have a refresher on starting a unit and on charter organizations, aswell as studing up on the Sea Scouting Program/ Venturing program too. I would highly suggest that the American Legion or the VFW be approach to become a charter organization for a Sea Scout Ship.( Your Council should have a American Legion Rep. that could help you out).

 

Tort claims,being sued, etc... The saying CYA... follow the program

[Bob White]

Not all together true FScouter. Unlike the accident insurance, the liability protection is based on the party being covered taking reasonable precautions to avoid causing injury. The insurance carrier (in this case the BSA since the liabilty umbrella is self-insured) could abandon the coverage should the volunteer through irresponsible action cause the injury.

 

Not taking available training, and certainly violation of the G2SS requirements could meet such conditions.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

FScouter's answer is certainly more reassuring from a liability point of view. Bob's answer is what scares off people. How to tell which one is true?

 

Take all available training? Follow every policy in G2SS precisely? But it's exactly that one time that a policy isn't being followed that is most likely to be the time something goes wrong. In fact, I'd guess that most accidents involve some combination of leaders who aren't trained and/or some violation of the G2SS. Has the BSA not defended any of those people?

 

I'd love to see actual case studies of Scouting accidents, what went wrong, and what the outcome was from a legal point of view. There are obviously a bunch of these cases around. It would be very educational from a safety perspective, and it would also shed some light on the liability issue.

 

Oak Tree

[packsaddle]

I think there may be a problem with our use of terms here. The term, 'accident', connotes different things for different readers.

 

A REAL accident has no cause that can be prevented through safety measures such as G2SS and may be incapable of prediction. An example of this would be an auto wreck caused by another driver who, say, blows a tire and crosses the center line. Tragic and unintended, but possibly unavoidable.

 

There is also a type of accident in which the persons involved have no intent for it to happen, but which happen through an innocent mistake. An accidental misread of a map, for example, and a wrong turn causes the vehicle to be stranded or enter some other bad situation.

 

Another type, also unintentional, would involve completely avoidable behavior in violation of safety rules but with unintended consequences. One example might be attempting to get through a changing light at an intersection - leading to a bad collision with a vehicle that had the right-of-way.

And there are actions that are completely careless of any safety concerns, say, driving the church bus at 80 mph down two-lane roads (or any road for that matter) to shorten the time, or allowing everyone to go boating without the required life jackets - that may lead to events that are sometimes referred to as 'accidents'. These, are regrettable in retrospect and perhaps unintentioned, but they are completely avoidable, at least in part, and I argue that they are not true accidents. An avoidable personal decision by a person in a leadership capacity has placed others at risk and caused harm. At least part of the event was intentional: the decision to take that risk and engage in the unsafe behavior.

 

'Accident insurance' mostly likely will apply in all cases but coverage, as noted, may not be forthcoming for the last examples.

'Liability insurance' in each of these cases, also will likely be judged differently.

 

Like the others here, I struggle to understand the legal consequences of all of these but ultimately, as has been noted, the courts and a jury of our peers will likely make the final judgement. And, in my experience with insurance companies (whether accident or liability), these are all considered on a case-by-case basis. I suspect BSA takes a similar approach.

Better to follow the rules, play it safe, get there late if necessary, and hope a meteorite doesn't land on us. And, ahem, hang onto that personal liablity policy.

[nldscout]

BW,

If you had read the post it deals with LIABILITY insurance, accident or medical was not the question. BSA will always be there on liabilty end becuse they are gonna be standing next to you in court and they have the deep pockets.

[FScouter]

Bob brings up a good point about insurance. There is a difference between an insurance policy issued by an insurance company, and self-insurance. Self-insurance is like a deductible. If an auto policy has a $500 deductible, you pay the first $500 and the insurance policy covers the rest. If your health insurance is 80/20, you pay 20% and the policy pays 80%. You could say that self-insurance is no insurance.

 

Insurance policies written by insurance companies are regulated by the state and are legal documents. What kind of insurance agreement do registered leaders have with BSA? If BSA self-insures for the first million dollars, they can specify the circumstance under which they will pay the judgments against members. So, what are those circumstances? What are the rules? What is the policy regarding paying claims? How does BSA decide whether they pay or dont pay? Are we really required to wear the uniform while traveling as was repeated again recently at our council commissioner basic training?

 

Frankly, I want rock-solid insurance that is guaranteed to pay. I want to know exactly what the exceptions are. I want to read the policy. That BSA is a trustworthy organization notwithstanding, Im just a tiny bit nervous if the first million dollars of a claim is paid subject solely to the judgment of BSA.

 

So whats the real story here. Are we covered or not?

 

[Bob White]

I am aware that the thread started to talk about liability protection but several posts so far have confused elements of accident insurance with that of the BSA liability umbrella.

 

For instance, the liability umbrella protects charter organizations, and registered adults from financial harm stemming from lawsuits against them for decisions they make, and actions they take, as scout leaders that lead to personal injury or property damage.

 

Now what in the world would a scout being in uniform (or not) have to do with that?

 

The age old rumor was that a scout needed to be in uniform during transportation for ACCIDENT insurance to be in-force, not liability. This is of course not true.

 

The other confusion is that the G2SS had to be followed for a scout's medical bills to be covered by ACCIDENT insurance. Again not true. Following the G2SS is an adults responsibility and the scout will not be denied medical coverage if injured because an adult screwed up.

 

LIABILITY insurance is self-insured by the BSA

 

ACCIDENT insurance is provided by other insurance carriers (Mutual of Omaha in this council as an example)

 

Here is how they work,

In the case that a scout is injured on a campout his primary (family) insurance coverage would be in force to pay his medical bills. The secondary (BSA) coverage would pay the deductable back to the family and would cover ANY medical bills not covered by the primary insurance. Should the bills exceed the coverage of the primary policy, or if no primary carrier exists the BSA accident insurance would become the primary coverage and cover ALL medical bills.

 

Now, lets say that the CO or any or all leaders are sued for damages caused by the injury BEYOND the medical bills, then the BSA will provide legal defense for the CO and or Leaders, and will pay for any fees or fines that result from a judgement aginst them.

 

PROVIDED that the CO and leaders showed reasonable effort to avoid injuries. That means they are trained and followed the related policies and procedures set forth by the BSA. Gross negligence could allow the BSA to abandon the coverage or even seek to subrogate its losses from the negligent parties.

 

YOUR BEST PROTECTION as a volunteer is to be a trained and conscientious leader and follow the policies and procedures of the BSA.

 

If (as one poster suggests some may feel) you find the condition of having to be a trained and responsible leader as cause to "scare you off", then it is probably best that you go do something other than be entrusted with the safety of other people's children.

 

 

 

 

[Oak Tree]

So seriously, the BSA won't defend an untrained leader? Wow. That'd be a pretty strong reason to get trained. Is there any documentation of that fact?

 

And is the standard that "a reasonable effort" has to be made, or does any violation of the G2SS void the coverage? Going 1 mph over the speed limit is a violation of the G2SS, but most people don't regard going 1 mph over the speed limit as an unreasonable safety risk. Swimming in water 13 ft deep? Two cars travelling together ("in convoy")?

 

Oak Tree

 

 

[Bob White]

There are also people who do not view shoplifting inexpensive items as illegal but they are wrong too. While scale of the crime may have an effect on the degree of punishment it has no effect as to the illegality of the crime.

 

It is not that untrained leaders aren't protected, it's that neglegent leaders aren't protected.

 

Drivers should obey the speed limit whether they are on a scout activity or not.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eamonn]

I was looking for something else and came across this on the Sea Scout site:

 

All boats under 26 feet or under 40 horsepower are automatically covered through the BSA general liability program. Boats 26 feet and/or over 40 horsepower owned by the council must be scheduled with the national office as there is no insurance coverage until an additional premium is paid. Vessels owned by chartered organizations or others and used in Scouting activities should carry their own insurance. If the chartered organization does not carry primary liability insurance on the boat, then it should be scheduled the same as a council owned vessel. Watercraft in the category of 50 feet or more are specifically excluded from BSA umbrella liability coverage and must be scheduled on a separate policy and an additional premium is charged.

Don't know if it helps or not?

I'm still trying to work out why the National Web Site provides a link to the Sea Scout web site and points out that it's not an official web site??

Still what I have pasted is at the bottom of the page about cruise plans and that page is on BSA letter head. However it is dated April 2, 1996 and is from Don Winston, Director, Exploring Division, so it may be out of date.

Eamonn.

[evmori]

You need to be trained to be covered by the BAS insurance? If this is true, then why isn't training mandatory?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

No, You need to be trained to limit your exposure to damages from liability suits.

 

If for instance you take a scout group white water rafting without having first done any training for the event, when the G2SS, specifically tells you to in the sweet 16 of safety, you are being negligent in you respoonsibilities. You were told in basic training about the Sweet 16, and about the G2SS, and about training prior to an activity.

 

But if you did not attend training, and didn't know about the G2SS, and didn't know about the Sweet16, and didn't know you should have gotten some training first, THEN you are a litigious anchor around the neck of the entire program. The BSA cannot afford to insure negligence. If you do not show some effort to have followed the policies and procedures of the BSA then you risk your personal finances not those of Scouting.

 

The most important step a scouter can take to safeguard the health and well being of the scouts they lead as well as their own finances is to GET TRAINED.

 

Here is what could be a real life example.

 

A cubmaster needs a ceremony for presenting a bobcat badge to some Cub Scouts. The CM asks his unit commissioner for a ceremony. The Unit commissioner says "when I was a CM I used to turn the boys over and hold them up while they are upside down and put the badge on them. Then when they are turned over the badge is upside down and they have to do a good turn to turn it over."

 

So, taking the commissioners advice the CM begins the ceremony, but when holding a scout upside down he gets a back injury causing him to drop the scout on his head. The scout sustains a severe spinal injury and the parents decide to sue the Cubmaster. The BSA must defend the Cubmaster even though he violated a specific regulation of the BSA, BECAUSE a commissioner, a respresentative of the BSA program, told him he could do it.

 

The BSA then looks to the comissioner WHO is supposed to know the rules or at least know where to find them. They discover that the commissioner did not know of the rule because he never read the Cub handbook, he never told the CM to look in the handbook for an approved ceremony, or to look in the BSA "Ceremonies for the Pack and Den" book for a ceremony. By not knowing, not using, and not following the BSA program a scout was severly injured and the BSA paid millions in a judgement.

 

Now if you were the BSA and found out that the commissioner had a significant scouting background and trained other scouters, and made this big of a mistake, what would you as the BSA do?

 

 

[evmori]

WOW! Sounds like someone lives in a glass-half-empty world.

 

Thanks, Bob, but A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Do you know if this has actually happened to someone or was that just a "for instance"?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Kahuna]

Eamonn asks: I'm still trying to work out why the National Web Site provides a link to the Sea Scout web site and points out that it's not an official web site??

 

 

It's because the Sea Scout site is a "quasi-official" site (my term), run by volunteers. Since the volunteers in question are in essence the National Sea Scout Committee, I guess they consider it reliable enough to be linked but not reliable enough to be official.

 

Your information about scheduling boats is still current as far as I know. If you're lucky your council will know how to do this. If not, you have to do some telephoning.