Liability for non-Scouts on outings

[Bob White]

Mike

As long as you are sure that either your council pays for accident insurance for the units or that your unit has purchased accident insurance through the council then your guests will have accident insurance.

 

 

Beavah...oh my beavah...It is silly to suggest that a person needs a law degree to understand insurance. I would bet that every single person on this forum has insurance even if they are not a lawyer.

 

What kind of personal insurance each member carries is totally irrelevant to what the BSA liability protection is and what it isn't and the same for the BSA accident insurance. It will affect the payment but it does not effect what the policies are.

 

In this case the BSA says that their liability protection is for REGISTERED adults and COS only. And that if the loss is caused during the commission of a crime or while willfully violaatig a BSA safety policy you might lose that protection.

 

A little common sense scenario. A person we will call Beav who has a liability policy breaks into another persons home causing property damage. The Homeowners insurance company subrogates the Beav's insurance company for the loss. Do you believe that Beav's insurance company is going to pay? Not if he has the same liability policy that I have from the worlds largest insurance company. It specifically states that it will not cover losses accrued during the commission of a crime. So does the BSA's.

 

"generally speakin' a finding of negligence and violatin' some rule, guideline, law, or regulation go hand in hand, eh?"

 

So you are suggesting that insurance would be useless because most accidents happen while breaking the law??? That's silly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

"Beavah, oh my Beavah?!" Yeh should try "O Captain, my Captain!" I don't look too much like Honest Abe, though.

 

Yah, BobWhite, I reckon mikecummings157 has gotten his answer, eh? I figure he and the rest of the readers aren't particularly interested in your continuin' education, so this'll be my last post on the topic.

 

I've already pointed out a number of crimes which do not void liability coverage. I take it that you concur with those examples. Yeh can add others by the bushel, from drunk drivin' to starting a fire during a burn ban (where, you will recall, the BSA's insurance carriers covered the individuals and the council in full, to the tune of a $7 million judgment plus legal expenses).

 

So your statement that "liability protection can be abandoned if the Scouter is in the commission of ANY crime during the incident" is simply erroneous. Any insurance carrier that could duck a $7M judgment would, eh?

 

When you refer to your breaking and entering example, you finally meet the definition of intentional tort, eh? You intended to cause that damage as a deliberate act. It wasn't negligence, or gross negligence, or careless and reckless, eh? It was deliberate and the result was intended. The equivalent of that when we're talkin' about children in a Scouting program is somethin' like molestation, where an adult leader intends to harm a child. But there can be other things, of course, like beating a child as punishment and causin' serious injury. I think we all recognize that insurance cover at that point is contrary to public interest and justice. It's a narrow exception, though, not a broad one.

 

That's why it's important to have a deeper understandin' of how things work that goes beyond a quick question at a trainin' session. The real answers aren't always clear.

 

There are "grey areas" too, eh? Things which depend on state law or are questions of fact. I don't want to get into all that, other than to say that da BSA has a marvelous reputation within da industry of always standin' by its volunteers, even in such cases which are "grey area." And that's as it should be. We are good partners to our volunteers and Chartering Organizations, and that's a reputation which is very valuable to uphold and maintain.

 

Beavah

 

NB: As always, nothing above constitutes a formal legal opinion on any individual case or issue, and should not be relied upon as such.(This message has been edited by Beavah)