Eagle1970

I had an odd thought, last night. Since there will never be enough money to compensate victims for what we have gone through, how about if BSA sets aside and maintains a network of local and national campgrounds for the sole use of survivors? I, for one, would eagerly enjoy the beauty of nature for a week or two per year at, say, Philmont-or even the local camps in my council (with 50 Amp full hookups, of course). Actually, it would be somewhat healing for me AND would paint BSA in the light of acknowledging the facts and publicly welcoming the victims.

In the same manner in which I disavowed my loyalty to BSA following the abuse I was subjected to, I opted to leave the Catholic Church and not raise my children within the parish or send them to the Marianist high school I attended. How hypocritical (and dangerous) would it have been for me, a firsthand victim, to subject my kids to the possibility of the same treatment I received in Scouts or the abuse that was becoming evident within the Church and Marianist organizations? My life, marriage and family relationships were forever scarred from having to make those decisions, as the remainder of my large family remained with the Church, Marianists and Scouts (to the exclusion of myself, former wife and my kids). I have struggled over the years with leaving the Church. But I am convinced that if there is a just and caring God, I won't be judged for having done so. Those who have chosen to continue with the BSA, in light of all the abuse, as well as those who did the same for the organized Catholic Church and Marianist-run schools do so with the full knowledge that caring for the abused comes along with the package.

Anything short of full and honest (and prompt) disclosure by the BSA is unacceptable. Spending settlement money on unnecessary filings is just more of the same. BSA is responsible to the damage they caused me and so many others, by blatant disregard and pure negligence in allowing unvetted "leaders" to have private custody of young children. And each time I see another legal tactic it makes me care a little less about its survival. I'm torn on the whole topic. I worked so hard for my Eagle, Order of the Arrow and other achievements but they were all relegated to a box of memories so tainted by the abuse, I can't even see them as valuable. Other than here, I never tell anyone I am an Eagle Scout.

While realizing the goal is to maximize recovery, it looks to me that the lion's share of potential is with the insurers. Nowhere have I seen that the BSA has the asset value to offer a reasonable settlement without them. If the BSA has the potential contribution of $1B and the insurers have the potential of $15B, I know where my efforts would be directed.

And mine as well.

Most of the General Liability policies I saw in the late 70's and 80's did not have any aggregate limit. IIRC, the Aggregates and the Claims Made policies were subsequent to that period, but certainly correct me if the dates are off. In any event, the evidence would be that the typical policy in the 70's did not limit the number of occurrences. There were also few exclusions back then, again IIRC, for sexual abuse.

If the BSA was aware of abuse and didn't put insurers on notice in a timely manner, there may be coverage implications. That would be a significant reason to reach a settlement.

I was in insurance my entire career. Years ago, there was no aggregate limit. Therefore if you had a $1 Million per occurrence liability policy, the policy was not exhausted after a single occurrence payment in that amount. Later, Aggregate limits were introduced to limit the total value of payouts. I would venture a guess that there are some old policies without aggregates that cover acts occurring during the coverage period, rather than when the claim is made.

They don't, these days. Years ago they estimated with a factor for expected occurrences.

Century writes some high-risk business and with high risk comes....well....risk. Fully owned by a holding company of a holding company of a holding company owned by Chubb, it would only be a paper bankruptcy. Another Chubb subsidiary will come along and assume it with a different name and they end up with a big tax loss and tons of profit down the line.

Only slightly off topic, please be aware that if you "Like" Abused in Scouting on Facebook, Facebook will proceed to inform all of your friends that you like the group/page. I found out the hard way when my Mother in law told my wife that she saw I liked AIS and asked her about my abuse-awesome for a person who considers this the most private matter in life. I would have to assume my other friends and associates saw it as well. So, I unliked it and filed a complaint with FB, which clearly loves to violate privacy.

Is there any one group that controls 67% for approval purposes? I wonder, to what extent, the law firms will vote (rather than individual claimants). To this point, I am pro se, as it appeared to me the large clusters (i.e. Abused in Scouting) would do the heavy lifting.

A corporation or organization is responsible for the acts of its members. Most of any settlement is going to come from insurers, that have not written the type of policy that will be utilized in many, many years. The insurance contracts were purchased for a reason, and they were agreed upon between the Scouts and Insurers. They collect huge premiums all day long and sometimes they get to pay out. I don't agree that their payouts are hurting current members. When the contracts were purchased, many in the 70's, they were factored in as part of the cost of employment and operations. I will not feel sad for Hartford, Century or Chubb for God's sake.

New to the forum, repeatedly molested by a BSA Camp employee. They can't fix the lifetime of damage I have endured. But I'm going to take what I am offered and do my best to finally let it go. My question is: Will all valid claimants receive the same share. Or (as in my case) will those who were more severely abused receive settlement on some sort of scale or factor? Obviously there is a difference between getting touched and raped, in level of severity.