Insurance

[click23]

We have all heard a hundred times if you do this or that or you don't do something you BSA insurance would be at risk. Several have responded "show me in writing", which is my standard response to any scout related policy.

 

While looking around scouting.org I found this, http://scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/HealthandSafety/Alerts/Insurance.aspx

 

 

 

Unauthorized and Restricted Activities

 

The Boy Scouts of America general liability policy provides coverage for a bodily injury or property damage claim that is made and arises out of an Official Scouting Activity. The Guide to Safe Scouting contains a listing of Unauthorized and Restricted Activities. Unauthorized activities are not considered Official Scouting Activities. Volunteers (registered and unregistered), Units, Chartered Organizations and Local Councils are jeopardizing insurance coverage for themselves and their organization by engaging in unauthorized activities. PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOURSELF AT RISK.

 

 

 

 

[AlFansome]

As a Chartered Rep for 5 units, I had seen that passage a few months ago and immediately send it on to my Committee Chairs and Unit Leaders (more as a reinforcement of what I've been telling them already than anything "new"). I don't recall that strong of a wording in the past...looks like it might have been strengthened recently.

[Beavah]

Yah, as always da insurance cover is not governed by what some staffer puts on a website. It's governed by the charter agreement and by the insurance master contract.

 

Da only valid "show me in writing" source is that contract.

 

It is true that some of da unauthorized activities are bona fide insurance exclusions. Used to be true that all of 'em were, but then H&S started adding dross like laser tag and water drinking to da list for political rather than safety/insurance reasons.

 

At least da statement does make it clear that none of the rest of G2SS or any of those other urban legends about wearing or not wearing da uniform affect insurance, only the subset of da unauthorized list.

 

As I've said in da past, the liability cover is a nice benefit, but only if it is reliable. If it has a bazillion exclusions and conditions and hidden traps, then it's not a benefit. We want it to be a benefit, so that COs and leaders can trust it, and the BSA.

 

But if you're really one of those sorts who hang out here who get da night sweats about werewolf lawyers hunting you down, do yourself and your stomach ulcers a favor and just take out a healthy liability umbrella policy of your own, eh? Da stuff is cheap. Yeh can get $2m of coverage over the counter from any insurer for less than $200. $5M is readily available for not that much more.

 

Then yeh don't have to worry either about your scout volunteering or driving da soccer carpool or having kids over for your son's birthday party, eh?

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Twocubdad]

Sorry, Beav, I don't believe in werewolf lawyers.

 

Badger lawyers, on the other hand, scare the begeebers out of me.

[John-in-KC]

Buffalo lawyers scare me. They can stampede you

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Criminal Lawyers always scare me, mostly because I think its a redundant phrase

[Eagle92]

I know the copyright lawyers scared the heck out of me.

[ctbailey]

Let's not forget that most of the insurance coverage we are afforded as registered members is "Excess" or "Secondary" insurance.

 

So... if you roll your car over while transporting scouts while on a scouting adventure, and people are hurt and damage is done to your or another parties vehicles... the vehicles OWNER'S insurance policy will be tapped first, then if claims are over and above the owners' policy limits... then and only then will the BSA policy kick in.

 

Same goes for the accident and health insurance. It's secondary to the injured person's personal health insurance.

 

So... if a scouter did not carry any insurance, then the BSA health insurance would cover immediately. All vehicles are required to have automotive insurance no matter what, so a vehicular claim will ALWAYS be on a secondary basis.

 

Craig

[Beavah]

Nah, yeh got that mixed up,eh?

 

BSA liability coverage is primary for registered leaders for everything except motor vehicle stuff (car, boat, and plane). It's excess coverage only for non-registered people serving as leaders.

 

As liability coverage, it will never cover your own vehicle.

 

Accident/medical coverage is zero-deductible excess coverage, with very low limits. It won't cover much more than a simple fracture, but it will pay a deductible on da scout/scouters personal policy. If it's in force, eh? Its optional coverage in many councils.

 

OGE, yeh really got me laughing with da "criminal lawyers" bit.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[AlFansome]

FWIW, here's a scan of a page from a recent version of the BSA liability policy that I found on some Council's web site a while back.

 

http://www.palmerpack215.com/upldDocuments/Unit134/2009%20liability%20ins.%20for%20charter%20partners.pdf

 

Note the wording "Official Scouting Activity" is again used with regard to coverage. Now, if we had a more official definition of that term than a BSA web page, then there'd be more certainty about when there'd be some exposure.

 

Or at least, enough fodder for the lawyers to start arguing about it. :-)

 

 

[shortridge]

Beavah - But until National shows us their insurance contract, all we have to go by is their guidance, right? And something tells me no one in Irving is going to post that contract on the intertubes.

 

And at any rate, we all promise to carry out the policies and programs of the Boy Scouts of America. That includes avoiding unauthorized activities. It shouldn't matter if it's an actual CYA move for insurance, or just because some junior assistant chief scout executive was horrified and shocked by a blown-out-of-proportion news report.

[Beavah]

Yah, sure. I don't encourage anybody going out and taking Boy Scouts hunting as an activity, eh? I just think we have a duty not to lie to them about the reasons. Claiming "insurance" when that's not a good reason is a failure of courage and character on our part. It's a lazy answer, when what is called for is an explanation and some evidence of why an activity doesn't make sense for some kids or for da program. People deserve da truth from us.

 

Yeh should be able to request a copy of da first tier master contract from your council business manager or FD, if you are a council member (COR).

[RememberSchiff]

 

Here's a story where you have to ask where is the BS insurance.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/chagrinsolonsun/index.ssf/2010/08/medical_bill_mounts_for_bainbr.html

[Beavah]

Yah, Rememberschiff, sad case, eh? But it's a good one to illustrate for folks da nature and limits of BSA insurance.

 

This is a case of a lad injured on a trip by an act of God, eh? On an established hiking trail, a section of ledge gives way underneath two boys. There is no cognizable negligence. So there is no basis on which da family can sue the leaders, the CO, or da BSA alleging it was their fault and they should be liable.

 

As a result, da BSA general liability policy doesn't apply.

 

What yeh have then is an injury, same as if the lads had fallen out of a tree at his home. The family's health care policy is the one that covers. This family apparently did not have health coverage - perhaps a foolish choice, perhaps a consequence of their employment situation, but an example of how da lack of universal coverage hurts real people.

 

If da council or troop chose to purchase it, the BSA accident insurance policy would apply on a secondary basis. It's unclear whether it was purchased for this unit. But yeh have to remember, that policy only costs $1-2 per year, eh? It can cover a deductible, or a basic ER visit for an uninsured kid. But da limits of coverage are so low that they'll never come close to covering the cost of 3 surgeries with a 10 day hospital stay. At most, it will cover a part of da first surgery.

 

So what you're down to is what this family is down to, eh? The charity of friends. Which is sort of like insurance-after-the-fact. If yeh care about kids like this, it's a bad, inefficient, scary way to go. If yeh want the Boy Scouts to provide real health care coverage, we'd have to be charging $200+ per year at regregistration, not $1. What yeh really want is to require families with kids at least to have health care coverage, so they aren't reliant on luck or charity, and so that da rest of us don't have to pay extra for our BSA coverage or our charity or our own health care coverage to handle da ER visits of uninsured kids like this one.

 

Of course, that means something like Romney-Obamacare.

 

Beavah

 

[Abel Magwitch]

RememberSchiff,

 

Please keep this forum informed if you can on the outcome in this matter.

 

I would like to know how the BSA will come through for this family.

 

Abel