New to the Forum?
Tell us a bit about yourself so we can welcome you to the Virtual Roundtable
1248 topics in this forum
-
- 38 replies
- 9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 9 replies
- 2k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 7 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.4k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.1k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.3k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
I'm an ASM and one of the things I do is track our Scouts below Star to provide a resource for planning to the PLC. I was updating my tracker last night and noticed a Scout that needed to fulfill Second Class 8c and 8d on Tuesday night was signed off, along with the SM conference. I distinctly remember this Scout needed those because I counseled him on it on Tuesday night toward the end of the meeting. I pointed out to the SM today that me may have mismarked it in SB because it wasn't done on Tuesday. He said that he met with the Scout this weekend and completed the requirements then, along with holding a SM conference. Contrast this with another Scout who completed all of the requirements for Second Class short of a BOR, was denied a BOR for November due to Veterans Day falling on our meeting night. He finished up First Class, minus the SM Conference before the end of November. Our BOR night is normally the second week of the month. For some reason, the CC decided to move BOR night up a week. The Scout was denied a SM conference that night before the BOR, so he could only complete the Second Class BOR that night and had to wait another month for First Class. Never was an SM conference offered on a weekend. No public announcement of offering to complete any requirements was made, other than swimming, this past weekend, and the SM was not in attendance at that event. The optics are really poor here. The troop was accused of favoritism under the last SM. It feels like the Scouts from this family are being favored over the rest of the troop. The Scout's older brother was slammed through rank progression as fast as they could. The excuse being that he is 15 and has a short timeline. Meanwhile, the Scout lacks the skills his current rank indicates that he should possess. So how do I tell the SM that this is an unacceptable way to do business? At this point, I'm ready to move to another unit, even if it adds another 15 minutes to my drive. Between the CC and SM being married and unwilling to relinquish either role and a complete lack of transparency on the troop finances, it's frustrating. -
I get your point. I thought it was up to this amount and assumed it would be lower. -
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.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)
- There are no registered users currently online