Boy Scouts get blame for Wild Fire

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

To bring back an earlier point, if an individual does not follow the rules established by the BSA, then the BSA and their insurance carrier will not provide coverage. This is standard procedure and protection for the insurance company as well for the individual. It is an agreement. Stupid behavior(s) is/are not covered.

 

Read and follow the G2SS.

Train Scouts and Leaders properly and let them know about the consequences of their behavior.

If you do your job as an adult and train others to do the same, then expect coverage, if not, then expect to pay for it yourself.

 

fb

 

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

I'd really like to have some input by a NCS trained camp Program Director about what he expects from Scoutcraft/Nature lodge youth and adult staff in running Wilderness Survival MB.

 

I'd really like to understand the National Camp Standards for a program area such as Scoutcraft during a "burn ban" period.

 

I'd really like to understand why some Scoutmasters, ASMs, Committee Members and senior youth did not inculcate the VALUES ideal of Scouting into the boys that built these fires.

[Aquila calva 10]

So, who will pay the $330,000?

 

It appears that the officials at the Utah Scout Council were fully expecting their insurance company to cover the costs associated with this fire. Here is a quote from an article posted in July 2004. The link is below.

 

The Great Salt Lake Council, which has told the attorney general's office it has more than enough insurance to cover the costs, is not church-sponsored, Johnson added.

 

(Johnson is/was Assistant Attorney General Mike Johnson.)

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20040702/ai_n11473613

 

Below is a link to a pdf of a lawsuit. This is dated January 22, 2007. Perhaps some lawyers can interpret it for us. But the last line seems to put the responsibility directly on the Council.

 

2. The Court finds that the Council did have a legal duty as a matter of law.

 

http://districtofutah.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/bsa.pdf

 

 

(This message has been edited by Aquila calva)

[Beavah 205]

To bring back an earlier point, if an individual does not follow the rules established by the BSA, then the BSA and their insurance carrier will not provide coverage. This is standard procedure and protection for the insurance company as well for the individual. It is an agreement. Stupid behavior(s) is/are not covered.

 

NO NO NO NO NO. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

 

Please do NOT EVER TELL THIS TO ANYONE. It is FALSE. And more importantly it HURTS THE SCOUTING PROGRAM because one of the big things the BSA markets to CO's and volunteers is the liability insurance coverage.

 

Da BSA liability insurance coverage (through Liberty Mutual and the major reinsurers) does NOT have exclusions in it based on the internal rules of the BSA. As this case demonstrates, it is possible to be stupid, violate the BSA rules about fire safety, and still be covered. Insurance is only useful if it covers you when you screw up. Because if yeh didn't screw up, then you're not liable in the first place, eh?

 

Gross negligence and criminal negligence of course are excluded in almost all policies, so there's an out if da person is a total fruitloop.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough before, eh? Sometimes folks just don't understand my accent. For a calmer discussion, see da previous insurance threads, eh, or all my other comments in this one.

 

 

But I have always been suspicious of insurance coverage that only costs a few pennies.

 

Yah, don't get the coverages mixed up. The BSA offers two different kinds of insurance. Type one is supplementary health insurance coverage, to take care of your personal health insurance deductible or to provide minimal care for somethin' like a broken arm for an uninsured boy. Da limits on this policy are really low - around $10K or less for most things. This insurance is mostly optional, though some councils require it or provide it for free. The cost is really low, too - a couple o' bucks a kid.

 

Type two insurance is general liability coverage, which is purchased by the BSA to cover it, CO's, and adult leaders. This insurance does not cost pennies, it costs many thousands of dollars. This is the type of insurance that we're talkin' about in the Utah fires case.

 

Below is a link to a pdf of a lawsuit... Perhaps some poor sot can interpret it for us.

 

Yah, this is not a PDF of a lawsuit. It's the court's ruling in the first formal phase of a lawsuit, pretrial motions. In this case "a motion for summary judgment". If yeh can get a quick summary judgment, meaning there's no dispute about the facts and the questions of law are clear, everyone goes home (or to appeal...). Often it's more a tactic to stretch things a bit while parties continue negotiations (and attorneys can bill more hours...).

 

In this case, it was the government filing for summary judgment against the BSA. The motion was denied, because there were enough questions of fact about how the fire started to refer the matter for trial. I might add "barely".

 

The court also took the time to respond to issues of law regardin' liability. It didn't have to do that, o'course, but the way to interpret this is that the court is sending a clear signal to the parties, the BSA in particular, to settle this case before trial.

 

The matters of law the court addressed were ones that were raised earlier in this thread.

 

1. Is the BSA responsible for the negligent acts of its volunteers and employees? The court answers "yes", under the established doctrine of respondeat superior ("let the superior answer" or "let the deep pockets pay" ), after the BSA admitted that its employees were involved.

 

2. Did the BSA have an obligation to protect the area from fire damage (in legalese, did they have a "duty of care" to the United States as plaintiff)? The court answers "yes", and goes on to state pretty clearly that the BSA violated its duty.

 

As we see in recent news, the BSA didn't miss the signal, and the trial date has been postponed indefinitely. I suspect we'll hear another settlement announcement in the near future, usin' the Utah settlement as a model.

 

Yah, and as an aside it's worth notin' the BSA's argument and the court's agreement that "the BSA policies do not create a duty [of care]". Legal responsibility and liability is decided by other things. The policies are there only to help and guide us.

 

Beavah

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

The results will give us an answer.

 

How do you do the green face with the tongue sticking out?

 

fb

[Beavah 205]

Yah, AntelopeDud taught me that one, eh? It's now one of my favorites !

 

You take a colon ":" and then follow it with a capital "P".

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

"But I have always been suspicious of insurance coverage that only costs a few pennies."

Thanks Beavah, for your explanation, that is a big help. I'm super careful after my family's encounter with big medical, big insurance, and a drunk driver. I'll keep the umbrella policy nevertheless.

About 'fruitloops', and I don't mean really bad breakfast, I think the policy you describe would probably cover someone who was not thinking clearly. It probably would exclude someone who caused damage with malice and intent. Perhaps I misunderstood your technical term.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, packsaddle, keepin' an umbrella liability policy is a good safe bet these days. Especially for the kind of things yeh can get into if you cause an auto accident that seriously injures several people. But if it gives you peace of mind while volunteerin', so much the better.

 

For those on da forum who might think we're talkin' about rainwear, "umbrella" liability insurance is insurance which covers you for tort liability (da kinda stuff you get sued for, where you made a mistake and someone got hurt, or someone's property got damaged). It's very inexpensive, typically on the order of $100 a year for $1M of coverage when linked to another policy like auto coverage. Whoever handles your auto or homeowners coverage would be glad to add a liability umbrella. If you own a house and have homeowner's coverage, that also covers you for liability (in order to protect your house from seizure), but it's worth checkin' the limits on your coverage.

 

Da BSA has a great reputation for standing by its CO's and volunteers, so yeh don't need to worry about liability from your scoutin' endeavors hurting you or your family. But for other things you do, an umbrella policy might give yeh some extra peace of mind.

 

I think the policy you describe would probably cover someone who was not thinking clearly. It probably would exclude someone who caused damage with malice and intent.

 

Yah, sorry about my use of technical terms like Frootloops, eh? You got it right.

[ASM915 90]

Back in my scouting days 30+ years ago, the troop I was in was unfortunately for them (before my time) credited with starting not one but two fires on campouts that prevented them from ever camping at those locations in the future. One I know was small, maybe an acre. The other was in another state. Of course all before LNT.

Now is the time to push, not to just mention or require reciting of the LNT principles, but to make the LNT Award no longer an award, but an actual core rank requirement. It can be dispersed throughout the TF to FC requirements including at least three LNT days camping. How about 10 days? The more, the better it gets driven home. Maybe they'll learn that there are very few rare circumstances where a fire is really needed, and then a very small one at that. If you're prepared, you won't need it for cooking or keeping warm. If you do, you need just enough wood for a small fire, around the size of your fingers so you can break it easily with your hands. Hey, then you won't need to carry that big cumbersome ax around adding extra weight to the pack. Maybe teach them how to use the ax for TOTEM-CHIP then put it away in the archives, except for demonstrations of Scoutcraft.

[SSScout 1615]

Never like to interfeer in stuff I'd much rader jes sit back and watch the conflagrashun transpire.

 

Now that we are all educated as to who will (has to) pay for the fire service overtime, I'd like to ask an importune question: (keeping in mind the purpose of our organization:::

 

What happens to the boys who (alledgedly) failed to properly extinguish the fire they never should have lit? Do they gain from the insurance settlement, perhaps some counseling? How do the PARENTS deal with the boys reaction? Can any of us, far removed from the incident, possibly imagine what must be going thru their minds? How do the UNITS support these folks ("a Scout is Loyal")?

 

Revoking the Fireman's Chit? LNT retraining? They don't seem like the best thing to me, but one wouldn't just cast these folks lose to drift with the tide, if you will.

 

YiS safely...

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Just because we have met a stalemate again here in the Forum does not mean there has been a final judgment by the parties most involved. It will be well worth our time to wait and see before we pull the final curtain down on this one and feel all warm and cuddely.

 

":"P I just had to try it.

 

fb

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Bump for Beavah