Liability insurance during an Eagle Project

[Stosh]

Forget the insurance, ask yourself will everyone on the roof be required to wear a fall-protection harness? Shingling? Eye protection? Hearing protection? gloves? Lifing heavy loads or loads capable to falling from above? Hard hats? It may be OSHA required, but as a volunteer "you don't have to comply?" Yeh right, in the hands of a good lawyer, you're toast! Remember negligence can be defined in many different ways once it hits the courtroom. I'm not trying to throw cold water on a worthwhile project, but due diligence is more important than insurance.

 

My latest Eagle project provided ALL OF THESE ITEMS for ALL "WORKERS". All chainsaw operators needed extra protective armor as well and all he was doing was cleaning up a park!

 

Just curious... how tall does the climbing wall have to be before hardhat, gloves and safety line are required? Then ask yourself, how tall is the roof?

 

Taking care of your people is part of the "showing leadership".

 

Stosh

 

 

OOOoooohhhh. A triple whammy. Sorry about that... Stosh

 

 

(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[John-in-KC]

Welcome to the campfire.

 

Contact your friendly District Executive. He's the one who can help you with this.

[NWScouter]

One thing I like to clear up, the accident insurance that a unit has purchases only medical coverage coordinated with any insurances a member of the unit has. It is not liability insurance, it will not cover the shingle that gets away and hits a park user for medical or for his windshield being fixed. It only covers specific persons. Last time I read one policy, the wording was such that it would cover a boy on an outing checking out Scouting but uncovered are non register persons like a little sister tagging along. The last I heard is the National is the holder of the General Liability.

[FScouter]

The attitude seems to be that the project recipient is doing the Scout some big favor, allowing him to do his project on they're property. Turn it around, try this approach. Say "Yes, we are wondering about insurance as well. We need to know what coverage you provide to protect our Scouts when they're working on your premises."

[eisely]

I was in our council office briefly the other day. There is a place where flyers and commonly used forms are available for the taking. I noticed there is now a form for requesting evidence of insurance. I did not pick up a copy to see the content. Aside from the risks involved in having a bunch of scouts scrambling around on a roof, I would be considered about long term liabilities for construction defects. This project, as described, is a step beyond constructing a few park benches.

[gcnphkr]

Okay, this will likely open a can of worms.

 

Why is it the unit, district, council or for that matter the scout's responsibility? In their work on the project they are acting as an agent of the organization that the project is benefiting. It should be that organization that provides the insurance. Just like the only scout that needs to be involved is the Eagle candidate; this is not a unit, district or council project, it is the organization's project. If the organization is unwilling to accept responsibility then the scout should look elsewhere.

[eisely]

If one applies the construction general contractor business model to this project, the contractor typically provides insurance and warrants the project for a period of time. This may not be the way we would look at the project, but this is the way public agencies look at these things.

[Gunny2862]

As to getting the Certificate from your Council - we have been warned to plan at least 30 days from request to receipt of the certificate.

 

I don't know what they have to do to get it but seems odd to me that it would take 30 days to get a proof of insurance for an existing policy.

[FScouter]

A good insurance agent will get a certificate faxed or mailed out the same day or next day at the latest. In a bueracracy the requests would go into a basket where they would sit, then once a month or so they would be handled.

[Beavah]

Yah, hiya skscci, welcome to da forums, eh?

 

Yeh didn't really provide enough info in your post to comment much on (not sure where everybody is gettin' the whole bit about building roofs... that was a different, much older post).

 

Generally speaking, there are two different kinds of BSA-related insurance.

 

One is accident (aka low-limits health) insurance. That is provided in some councils (usually for a $1 fee per registered person at reregistration), and is optional in others (the unit if it wants coverage has to send a check in to Health Special Risk, the insurer). That would covered registered youth, registered adults, and guests who are considering joining for medical bills for their own injury that their regular health insurance didn't cover (i.e. the deductible). It's very low-limits coverage, eh? It will handle a basic ER visit but not much else. It does not cover friends, family, etc. who come out just to help.

 

Second is General Liability coverage, which applies to da Chartered Organization and adult leaders. That is very high limits, tiered coverage provided by multiple different insurers including a self-insured portion. It is in force automatically when a unit (re)charters. That covers only liability claims against the adult leaders and CO, eh? So it does not in any way cover the health expenses of friends, family, etc. who come out on any outing, nor does it cover them if they do something negligent which injures a troop member or third party. If they bash themselves in da finger with a hammer or back their car over someone else's kid, it's their problem, just as it would be if they weren't with da scouts.

 

At your request, your council business manager or field director can issue you proof of (general liability) insurance if that is requested by a third party. At your request, your council business manager or field director can also have a third party listed as a named additional insured on the general liability policy, meaning that the liability coverage will extend to the city (in this case) during the activity which BSA adult leaders are supervising. Again, that's only liability, eh? It covers da city in cases where the city would be sued for negligence on the theory that they are responsible for the actions of the scouts working on their land. So if yeh drop a load of bricks on someone's car and they sue you and your church and the city, da BSA general liability policy will act as primary insurer for the lot. And contractor errors-and-omissions coverage is definitely not offered.

 

How long it takes to get a proof of insurance certificate depends on what limits of coverage you request on da certificate. Below a certain dollar amount (used to be $500K, think it's more now) your council staff can issue a certificate immediately. Above that dollar amount, it has to go off to Regional, which is what introduces some delay. Amounts that exceed the coverage limit of the first tier insurer ($5M) take even longer. Dat's why the 30 days figure. It's well-padded to allow for delays between levels.

 

I'm back to agreein' with FScouter, though, eh? While there's some merit to da city wanting some level of protection against a scouter being a bonehead, everyone is also workin' as volunteers on behalf of the city. The city's policies and any applicable insurance for volunteers should be in force, and da city should take responsibility for the E&O liability of any construction they authorize.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutmaster Ron]

The council would not be providing the insurance the project sponsor would. This is not a boy scout project thats why you dont do it for them. This is a scout using the leadership skills gained thru scouting applying it towards a non profit project and using it towards his boy scout advancement

[Beavah]

The council would not be providing the insurance the project sponsor would. This is not a boy scout project thats why you dont do it for them.

 

Yah, actually we don't do things for the lads even if it is a full-out Boy Scout outing, eh?

 

This is actually both, and the BSA General Liability policy definitely is in force. Remember, we approve da projects in advance, eh? Screen them for safety and age-appropriateness and all that. By that very act we expose ourselves to liability regardless of whether or not we're on the site with the lad. And if a scouter does happen to be on site with the lad, we are goin' to defend him if he's sued for it. Simple as that.

 

In terms of da city, as I mentioned, it's routine to attach an additional insured rider for da city or whatnot. Happens all the time or we wouldn't be able to do the outings we do in a lot of places.

 

I suppose we can get in an adult pissin' match with da city manager and blow up this lad's Eagle Project on a matter of principle, but I reckon that it's just easier to use the mechanisms the BSA provides to satisfy the city and let the boy do his project to the benefit of all. That way we get good PR for scouting, and goodwill as a partner from da cities we live in.

 

Now if the city or other entity gets off its bureaucratic nonsense and applies some common sense and decency to da situation as well, all the better. I'm just not used to seein' that from government workers. Always safest for their employment to be a mindless bureaucratic cog. Nobody's ever likely to hold 'em accountable for quality of service.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutmaster Ron]

However this is not a boy scout outing, no tour permit filled out we approve the project simply that he can use it towards his advancement. The project sponsor has already approved it first

[Beavah]

However this is not a boy scout outing, no tour permit filled out we approve the project simply that he can use it towards his advancement.

 

Yah, that's an amusin' legal theory, eh? An intrepid attorney for da BSA's insurer might give that a go at trial. It would look great in da newspaper, eh? "Boy Scouts deny responsibility for Eagle Scout project, expect taxpayer to foot the bill for their negligence." or "Scoutmaster says BSA accident insurance won't cover boy working on Eagle project, family may have to sell only car to pay for treatment."

 

I don't think it would hold water. The boy is a minor, after all. If a scouter is on site, he's goin' to be da presumed supervisor and he's goin' to get named in the suit and the BSA's insurance cover is goin' to defend and indemnify him. Tour permit doesn't matter a lick.

 

But if some BSA fellow was floatin' that notion, you could see why da city would start demanding proof of insurance for allowing a minor to lead a project involving lots of other minors on their property. And maybe parents wouldn't let their boys participate.

 

Remember, if you're makin' da city responsible, then the city is goin' to do what it does with other volunteers, eh? They're going to exercise their responsibility by supervising. Which means they're goin' to be on site closely directing all the boys and running things. Same with parents of other boys, eh? And then it isn't goin' to be a valid Eagle project.

 

This really isn't hard, eh? Scouting is a partnership with da community. We give them something (service), and in return they give us something (unusually open access so that we can use our program to help boys become men). If our partner needs proof of insurance in order to be responsible to their constituents, as good partners we provide it.

 

And to my mind as good partners we don't make spurious claims like "an Eagle Scout project is not a scouting activity".

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Knot Head]

It's a good idea to screen these projects so we don't approve projects that put youth into dangerous situations they are not trained nor ready for. I mean teenagers seem to think they are immune to injury sometimes.

 

But I can't help but miss the good old days when you could assist a group that needed help without worrying about insurance & getting permission slips and health forms with Part A&B&C completed and signed first. I guess we'll have to get those forms notarized here pretty soon.