Re: Liability insurance
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Tue, 30 Jan 1996 19:58:43 -0500
On Jan 29, 1996 18:48:58, '"Paul H. Brown" <phbrown@CAPACCESS.ORG>' wrote:
>It has been suggested that scouters carry an umbrella liability policy.
>i do, but have had one since well before I was registered as a scouter.
>
>Does my council's liability policy (which, I hope, protects me) have a
>large deductible, which requires that I have my own liability policy?
No, I do not believe it does. I believe that it is merely excess to the
sum of all the coverage you have. I may be wrong, but I believe the
current liability limit under national's auspices is 4 million. I also
believe that you are covered by national, not by your local council, so you
need not worry about the financial health of the council, merely national's
since national self insures a significant part of the coverage to keep
their premiums down. Thus, THEIR policy has a large deductible, but the
one they provide to you does not.
>An example. I live in Virginia. A (IMO, benighted) commonwealth that
>does NOT require public liability insurance for its drivers. If I, as an
>uninsured scouter, get in a wreck while on BSA errands, does the council's
>insurance defend and pay any ensuing liability suit against me?
I hate states that don't require their drivers to carry liability insurance
because they make my rates go up for uninsured motorist coverage, but
that's an entirely different issue.
If, in fact, you carry no liability coverage that would apply, either on
your vehicle or on your home, then I believe the national coverage is
invoked from the first dollar.
>If I have some liability coverage (say, $25,000 worth), and have the same
>accident, does my liability insurer defend and pay $25,000 worth, with the
>council stepping in for any >$25,000 judgment?
Yes, I believe that's the way it would work.
>If so, then why should I carry any excess liability, or umbrella
insurance? (I >learned in law school -insurance law isn't my specialty,
BTW- that a good reason to
>carry lots of insurance is that more insurance buys a better defense: an
>insurance company with $1 million on the line will spend more, and hire
>more experience, than a company with $25,000 on the line.)
You just named the primary reason why I believe it is a good idea to carry
the umbrella coverage even though you might be covered by national's
insurance to a figure far in excess of the claim. Another is that
national's council may have conflicting interests since the local council
or even national might also be named in the suit. Therefore, their
attorneys might be less aggressive in defending YOUR interests than
attorneys working for YOUR insurance company.
>Same accident, but I'm a risk adverse a/r type. Insured for $300,000 on
>my car. $1,000,000 umbrella policy. Again, does the council participate
>in my defense, as well as any settlement/judgment >$1,000,000?
No, I believe that they are involved for the excess over $1,300,000. I
always thought that the umbrella covered the difference UP TO $1,000,000
from your primary coverage, but I just read my policy and it appears that
the coverage is for $1,000,000 in excess of the primary coverage. I do not
know if national's coverage is for an additional 4 million or just the
difference to 4 million but hopefully none of us ever have to find out. (I
see no reason why if the coverage is "excess" their definition would be
different from the one in my policy, but I don't know.)
One other thing. My policy, for example, talks about it being the last
policy to take effect, after not only primary coverages, but secondary
coverages, excess coverages, etc. My gut tells me that the BSA policy says
the same. This could lead to an argument, for example, as to which of the
"excess" policies would be responsible for the amount in excess of $300,000
if your example above settled for $800,000. I am sure that you would be
covered, but I am not sure by who. I am also sure that this is not a
unique situation and that there is some standard practice in the insurance
industry or under the law which prioritizes the policies.
>To add to the scenario, assume the same accident, but I've neglected to
>get a tour permit? Still covered by the BSA policy?
You've just started to get into one of the best reasons for a personal
umbrella policy. While I believe that national's requirements really are
that drivers meet certain qualifications and that if you are on a trip
where that is true but have not filed a permit you would be covered anyway,
I am not sure about that. If national should try to distance itself on
this type of technicality your personal policy would certainly still cover.
>What if we're ultralight flying? When does BSA say to me: it wasn't a
>real scout activity (even though all present are registered
>scouts/scouters), so you're on your own?
Now you are more likely to find that you would not be covered by national
since ultralights are specifically prohibited as a Scouting activity.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
