Chapter 11 announced - Part 11 - Judge's Opinion

[Eagle1993]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Question #2 - Sort of still related ... and asked before ... how do insurers settle but the insured still has liability?  If COs like TCJC are not in the settlement and the insurance company is not bankrupt, then TCJC should be able to go after the insurance company that insured those incidents ... it seems like the insurance company won't have full liability protection.

My guess to help answer your question.

Lets say the local Elks club is sued by Johnny scout for some abuse that occurred prior to 1976.  Lets say the jury says the Elks club is 50% liable and owes Johnny scout $500K.  Per BSA, the BSA did not provide any insurance to any CO pre 1976.  So, the Elks would have to look through their own insurance policies from that time.  Best case, they find a policy that is valid for abuse and didn't settle.  At that point, perhaps some or all of that $500K could come from that insurance policy.  To me, the complex part is if they had a policy that did settle.  Well, the Elks still owe the $500K per the jury finding.  So, perhaps the Elks could try and sue the settlement trust to get whatever they are owed.  I'm not sure what else the Elks could do.

In reality, I think lawsuits against most COs will be very limited.  First, the lawsuits are limited to pre 1976 so victims are likely in the range of mid 50s to 90s.  Second, there will be limits from statue of limitations (yes, you can fight that, but it is tough).  Third, cases cost a lot of money to fight (on both sides) so lawyers will want to ensure a big pay day if they start a case (and given insurance settlements, may be wary).

Now, as you mention, it could really depend on how the CO is organized, insured and how many claimants exist.  TCJC will be sued, I have no doubt.  However, the Lions Club, VFW, Kiwanis, local churches, etc.?  Not sure.  Perhaps if they have 10s+ claimants within the right date range & statue of limitations and some sort of assets to go after.  

We will have to wait and see.  Definitely complex.  While per the BSA the COs are protected going forward, I fully understand why some (Methodist & Elks) are looking to change their relationship to prevent any further risk.

[gpurlee]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

In reality, I think lawsuits against most COs will be very limited.  First, the lawsuits are limited to pre 1976 so victims are likely in the range of mid 50s to 90s.  Second, there will be limits from statue of limitations (yes, you can fight that, but it is tough).  Third, cases cost a lot of money to fight (on both sides) so lawyers will want to ensure a big pay day if they start a case (and given insurance settlements, may be wary).

I would concur with your assessment. This potentially could change in those states that in the future add a look back window in the state statute of limitations for compelling cases. 

 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

We will have to wait and see.  Definitely complex.  While per the BSA the COs are protected going forward, I fully understand why some (Methodist & Elks) are looking to change their relationship to prevent any further risk.

And the United Methodists and the Elks will not be alone I suspect as more and more chartered organizations recognize the potential risks AND the demands of providing adequate oversight. I have to wonder how long the current model of chartering organizations can exist for a variety of reasons. 

[BadChannel70]

And I am quite sure the TCJC is aware SCOTUS recently denied a petition filed by numerous California Roman Catholic Archdioceses to overturn California's look back window for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

This strengthens the hand of those mixed-abuse claimants in open states including TCJC survivors. They will face us survivors in mediation, arbitration, litigation, and any other gation you can think of.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by BadChannel70

[fred8033]

8 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

... To me, the complex part is if they had a policy that did settle.  Well, the Elks still owe the $500K per the jury finding.  So, perhaps the Elks could try and sue the settlement trust to get whatever they are owed.  I'm not sure what else the Elks could do.

Thank you for the nice write-up.  This is the part that will eternally confuse me.  The insurance settlement is with the victim; not the theoretical CO.  Unless the insurance company is bankrupt, why would the CO go after the settlement trust.  The CO should work with the existing insurance company that insured the CO.

This smells like a 100% match of the 1990s California BCBS class action.  BCBS insured patients and BCBS was negotiating discounts (aka settling) on medical bills and leaving the patient out of discount (settlement).  The medical providers then went after the patients for the remaining part of the original bill.  The CA courts ruled (my crude summary) that BCBS breached the insurance contract by not including the patient in the negotiated discounted bills.  

BSA insurance settling liability claims without covering the insured CO smells like a violation of the basic insurance agreements.  

Edited August 3, 2022 by fred8033

[Eagle1993]

On 8/2/2022 at 11:43 PM, fred8033 said:

BSA insurance settling liability claims without covering the insured CO smells like a violation of the basic insurance agreements.  

I was able to find this in the plan:

Quote

203. “Participating Chartered Organization Settlement Contribution” means: a. to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the Participating Chartered Organization Insurance Assignment; b. to the extent of any rights, claims or interests not assigned to the Settlement Trust pursuant to the Participating Chartered Organization Insurance Assignment, the waiver and complete release of (i) each of the Participating Chartered Organization’s rights, titles, privileges, interests, claims, demands or entitlements under the Settling Insurance Companies’ Abuse Insurance Policies and any Settling Insurer Policy Rights; (ii) any Claim held by the Participating Chartered Organization that is attributable to, arises from, is based upon, relates to, or results from, in whole or part, directly, indirectly, or derivatively (including through any insurance policy issued by the Settling Insurance Companies), alleged Abuse Claims that occurred prior to the Petition Date against the Settlement Trust, the Debtors, Reorganized BSA, the Local Councils, any Contributing Chartered Organization or Settling Insurance Companies; and (iii) any and all Claims that have been asserted in the Chapter 11 Cases by or on behalf of any Participating Chartered Organization, including any Indirect Abuse Claims, without any further notice to or action, order, or approval of the Bankruptcy Court, which Claims shall be expunged from the Claims Register, and the agreement of each Participating Chartered Organization not to (a) file or assert any Claim or Claims against the Settlement Trust, the Debtors, or Reorganized BSA arising from any act or omission of the Debtors, the Local Councils, any Contributing Chartered Organization, or any Participating Chartered Organization on or prior to the Confirmation Date, (b) object to the Document Appendix and obligations thereunder, or (c) file or assert any rights or interests in any property transferred to the Settlement Trust under the Plan, including the proceeds of any settlements paid by a Settling Insurance Company; and c. the assignment to the Settlement Trust of any and all Perpetrator Indemnification Claims held by the Participating Chartered Organizations

Basically, the COs gave up their rights to insurance if the insurance was one of the "Settling Insurance Companies".  The only way for the CO to not give up those rights, is to opt out.  So basically, COs have 3 options.

Option 1 - Opt Out:

No protection from BSA, but they retain insurance rights.  How they attempt to cash in will likely require some lawsuits for insurers who settled.  So far, I am unaware of any CO going down this path.

Option 2 - Participating CO:

Protection for post 1976 abuse claims.  No protection for pre 1976 abuse claims.  What did they give up?  They gave up any insurance coverage for abuse claims that came from settling insurers (even pre 1976).  Now, they could have their own coverage from an insurance company that did not settle in the bankruptcy. 

Option 2B - Roman Catholic Only:

Protection for post 1976 abuse claims.  & protection from pre 1976 abuse claims IF that claim would have been covered by a settling insurer.  What did they give up?  They gave up any insurance coverage for abuse claims that came from settling insurers (even pre 1976).  Now, they could have their own coverage from an insurance company that did not settle in the bankruptcy. 

Option 3 - Contributing CO:

By settling, they are protected from all scouting abuse claims.

 

On 8/2/2022 at 11:43 PM, fred8033 said:

The insurance settlement is with the victim; not the theoretical CO. 

Actually, by the CO choosing Option 2,  they agreed to the insurance settlement and removed any rights they had to the policy.

 

 

[fred8033]

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Option 1 - Opt Out:

No protection from BSA, but they retain insurance rights.  How they attempt to cash in will likely require some lawsuits for insurers who settled.  So far, I am unaware of any CO going down this path.

Thank you !   That explains what I thought would happen.  If a CO opts out, they maintain insurance rights even against an insurance company that settled.  That's what I would expect.  So, if LDS opted out or for COs that are not part of the settlement, those COs still have claims against their insurance ... even if that insurance company settled ... considering previously posted time periods and insurance coverage info.

Edited August 4, 2022 by fred8033

[RememberSchiff]

Posts regarding mandatory reporting moved to their own topic created by @T2Eagle

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by RememberSchiff
giving credit

[clbkbx]

The TCC today posted a "preliminary statement" at tccbsa.com. 

[RememberSchiff]

Off-topic posts related to TCJC, LDS have been moved here.

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle1993]

BSA plans to submit an updated plan Aug 12 and have asked for a hearing Aug 24.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dc3627da-d67c-4c45-8b43-42b5b17e32e7_10176.pdf

 

 

[johnsch322]

Amendment to the plan was posted recently to the docket

8950ce76-0b70-4e57-a957-d4d9cc3d51c8_10189.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Amendment to the plan was posted recently to the docket

8950ce76-0b70-4e57-a957-d4d9cc3d51c8_10189.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

That's a link to shorten the notice period.  Here's the link to the ammendments:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6907113e-9265-4b5f-9d7d-e9e61e182818_10188a.pdf

[Eagle1993]

TCJC deal is removed but they are a participating CO.  

Insurance of Archbishop of Agana will not go to trust.

Updated plan to address most of the objections.

Note they are also removing the $100M fundraising commitment from UMC.

They are asking for some specific findings of fact that she didn't mention.

I may have missed some aspects, but we may be close to a decision. 

TCJC didn't go nuclear and become a opt out CO.  To me, that is big and likely allows this to be confirmed. 

 

[fred8033]

7 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

TCJC deal is removed but they are a participating CO.  

Does this mean incidents will need to be judged on whether they were "scouting" or "church"?  If scouting, it's part of bankruptcy?  If church, it's not?

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Does this mean incidents will need to be judged on whether they were "scouting" or "church"?  If scouting, it's part of bankruptcy?  If church, it's not?

They still have some time to work out a settlement on scouting abuse.  

Post 1976 scouting abuse ... Goes to bankruptcy.

Pre 1976 scouting abuse ... TBD... They have 12 months to work out a settlement.

Non scouting abuse... No protection