Eagle1970

Look at my post above with the link. I posted the article with attribution to Kosnoff, from NPR. Click the link, view the article.

Boy Scouts sell off camps under strain from sex abuse suits : NPR Boy Scouts sell off camps under strain from sex abuse suits : NPR

This particular article did not attribute the valuation to Kosnoff. I read a couple of others that did.

Just wondering about this. I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff. My obvious question is why the LC contribution is so much lower than that. https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/bankrupt-boy-scouts-may-have-10-billion-in-land-and-developers-want-it/article_bfd254e3-6517-5695-b12f-db2fe5b79029.html

It has not helped me. And the more this case has reopened the memory, the worse it has become. I'm in a SOL state, can't prosecute my monster or sue anybody. There might be finality when the case is over. Knowing there is nothing more I can do, there is no other path. Knowing my abuser will face no penalty leaves me somber.

So am I correct in my understanding that since my abuse was pre-1976 (Catholic Church Sponsor) and they will not be released, that I will receive a mitigating factor in the calculations? Even though under State law they are protected by SOL....

All of this seems like it is taking forever. But, in reality, even simple cases can take substantial time in court. And this is no simple case.

Yep, I really didn't need the audio at all. It was over the top. But the video was so on target, I thought for a moment it was my camp.

Just found the trailer and viewed it. I didn't need any audio to take me back to that summer. The camp, the lake... it was just like that for me. It is clear that while I probably need to watch this and other programming to continue to work through my abuse, I will die with the bad memories. And, no, there are no good memories. Now I look at every event with question.

Insurance companies, believe it or not, are only interested in money. If I were underwriting BSA exposure, at least based on history and the current situation, there would be no way I'd sign off on the risk without a huge premium. And the same goes for the Catholic church. Granted, neither is able to cover up abuse as they could in the past, but the potential is still there and is going to be there. I really don't know how you would even price the exposure. One claim could cost millions.

Thanks for all of your detailed posts. In a sense, an enterprise should not leave bankruptcy with much more than zero. Do you have an idea of the total non-liquid asset value they will retain?

While I haven't bought into insurer's arguments and have no interest in debating the topic, there is typically a percentage of fraudulent claims in mass tort cases. It would be highly unlikely this is an exception, with the around-the-clock tv and fb ads telling the world there is a ton of money awaiting.

I believe the proof of claim process was flawed. Had it required personal completion and real signatures with much more detail, many weak or even fraudulent claims would have never been filed. Now they have to do what they can on the back end, after law firms have substantial money invested. Regarding the need for bankruptcy, I see it as BSA didn't have much choice. A couple dozen crazy high jury awards and they would be back in the same box-especially if the look back windows and sol revisions held up.

Independent Review Option

There must be middle ground that washes out claims lacking credibility without further traumatizing valid claimants. If the payout was 7 figures, I would fully expect serious testing. If, however, a Grey state victim is headed for 4 or low 5 figures, they can't really expect much. And as we know, $3500 will require nothing.

I never saw a policy that stated the insured could do everything he wanted to worsen the claim. Mostly, they require full cooperation of the insured. And not necessarily for a lower rate, as was previously mentioned. So, yep, it is standard procedure.

It is unfortunate that, while valid and necessary to go through all of these motions, they may lead to a substantial delay in payments to victims. My entire career was insurance related, and every day of delay is more profit. Many of us are already in our late 60's or 70's and may not live long enough to see this process to conclusion.

The upcoming questionnaire will require much more detail. I wonder how many proofs were submitted on behalf of claimants that just didn't bother to interview them versus those who simply don't remember anything.

That was a bad roll of the dice. Not one I would have chanced.

I'm referring only to the Mitigating Scaling Factors based on SOL. (p 189). As you know, I'm not a legal scholar. Nor am I represented by one. But I do wonder how these factors can be imposed when windows are being challenged. Mitigating Scaling Factor Ranges for Statutes of Limitation or Repose by State Legend Tier Scaling Factor Open 1.0 Gray 1 .50-.70 Gray 2 .30-.45 Gray 3 .10-.25 Closed .01-.10

Even with a strong case for tolling the SOL via fraudulent concealment or delayed discovery, survivors abused in Grey states max out at the top end of their scaled bracket, i.e. Grey 3 @ .25. Should the scaling get another look? The scaling lost logic to me after the NC ruling. If other window states face similar constitutional issues OR have that potential, it would be questionable to treat them as open, when the window could be reversed.

I lived over 50 years with the scars of my abuse. Had I been in an open state and compensated appropriately, it would have felt to me like I won the lottery, after so many years of not even being able to confront my abuser. All that means to me is that I would suddenly receive a large amount of compensation along with justice. No apologies from me. I will not be impacted by an attempt to chastise or scold me. Way too old for that. If you can't handle dealing with someone who uses slightly different words than you would choose, that's on you. Like I've said before, I am grateful I do not need the money because I'm not going to see any windfall in compensation, due to state law. Those who do, solely because they live in a state that cares about the rights of the people over those of insurers and churches, are receiving a windfall or whatever word makes you happy.

Never meant as absolute reality, as in a boy buys a ticket to be molested. If you prefer to criticize my word, rather than understand my point, there is no need for me to contribute.

It is difficult to separate the reality of law from the reality of abuse. When I say "morally wrong", I mean just that. In an equitable world, BSA should vet the cases, throw them out or pay the $3500, and exit bankruptcy with a trust that equitably compensates victims based on its moral duty. Paying some victims millions and some nearly nothing, then exiting bankruptcy like "ok, we took care of that" will never show BSA in a good light again. Open state victims hit the lottery. Those of us subjected to multiple or ongoing abuse, and in my case by a real actual BSA employee who had a "reputation" (who happen to be in closed states) will see little justice. So, while I realize this settlement may be in line with the "Law", it is surely not in line with the moral obligation the BSA has to victims.

I'm almost 66 and can remember most everything in my life, in detail. I have a friend in his late 50's who can't remember last week. It's frustrating to even try to converse. So, I get it and there may be some in that situation. But opportunists game most every mass tort. And I'm confident, with all those commercials, this is no exception. Hell, not a bad deal just for $3500, for an opportunist.