Open Discussion - Program
Share Scouting Topics here.
Subforums
-
- 816
- posts
-
- 2.8k
- posts
9747 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 813 views
-
- 15 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 884 views
-
- 19 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 27 replies
- 5.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 859 views
-
- 14 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 33 replies
- 8.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 796 views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
By johnsch322 · Posted
Not sure how 141 IRO cases could take 80% of additional insurance money. If only $4 Billion more is recovered how could the average settlement be an average of 27 million. -
By BadChannel70 · Posted
Other reasons why the insurers wanted to move the case from Texas federal court to Illinois state court: 1. Trying to start at the bottom of the food chain with state court. Don't have to worry about that as this case is now wading its way through federal court. Less delay starting closer to the top of the food chain. 2. Attempt to freeze case indefinitely under Colorado River abstention. Denied which equals less delay. 3. Judge stated in opinion, "“Texas law is likely to apply to many of the issues in this case.” Texas has very strong bad faith statutes. In addition, historically Texas juries are not friendly to coverage avoidance particularly involving childhood sexual abuse claims and Texas has stiff Insurance Code penalties. Yes, the insurers can delay but the more they delay, the door opens more wide for "bad faith" penalties. In Texas, if a jury finds bad faith where policy benefits are withheld, damages are not capped and attorney fees are recoverable. I am sure this is one of reasons why bad faith was included in the lawsuit. In short, risk is growing exponentially for the insurers. A normal loss = policy limits A bad-faith loss = uncapped damages. -
It seems like it has ended with a muted thud. SC appeals are over, most people are resigned to getting 10% or less of any award, SOL claimants left behind, Trust doesn’t really communicate anything because there’s nothing to say, SSS issue will work its way through (likely by decreasing to what was originally expected/submitted), IRO unknown but probably will max out 80% of any additional insurance money, a new Scouting entity unencumbered by liabilities associated with decades of covering up sexual abuse, insurance companies slightly less wealthy but still very wealthy… everyone goes home having been put through the ringer of an unjust system. I wish you all the best. -
By BetterWithCheddar · Posted
This was a pretty good den meeting, considering the low cost and prep time. I highly recommend for future Ben Den Leaders. Save it for midway through the year when you're burned out and the weather limits your options. -
Some of these issues were caused by the councils and how they have things configured in AKELA. For example, one of my units hit "the naughty list" for not rechartering timely and I was confused so I spoke with the COR; the COR completed recharter the first week of December (all online). I then went to the DE and let him know that the unit rechartered online the first week of December, and was promptly notified that "whoopsie" council has an "introduced" manual process that blocks all recharters for a manual review that caused the issue. We're never going to have a smooth process if the professionals are introducing extra steps to try and keep this 1970's style. $237 isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things but what are the scouts getting back for that? The fee's are not bad if the scouts are getting value back; I just don't see the value back when visiting these high fee councils. One of the councils adjacent to mine has a $160 council fee; they have 18 more fulltime paid staff than my council and they have several hundred fewer scouts; what value is that council getting?
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)
- There are no registered users currently online