Understandin' Insurance

[Beavah 205]

I'm not a whiz at this insurance stuff, though my brother works for an insurance outfit. But it seems like in scouting circles da craziest stuff gets passed around sometimes. So I'll kick this off as the thread for insurance questions, and maybe some knowledgeable people will offer words of wisdom. (Real knowledge, mind you... insurers or attorneys with that specialty, not Joe who heard from Fred at the Round Table).

 

SR540 wrote in the original thread:

 

Also, CO's are not expected to provide insurance for a unit. CO and unit liability insurance is provided thru the council.

 

I think almost all CO's these days also have their own general liability policies, especially if they are runnin' any kind of youth program, eh? That's certainly goin' to be true for schools and churches. The large churches' policies are likely to match or exceed the BSA's; and they have the advantage that you can read the policy.

 

That's probably a smart thing, eh? This past year, the Forest Service handed down a $15M fine against a unit that started a forest fire. That almost exceeds the stated BSA coverage limits. It'd be good to have that CO insurance as "backup."

 

For PTO's and service organizations, general and volunteer liability coverage is really quite inexpensive and well worth it for peace of mind, especially when some training nutcase threatens that "the BSA insurance won't cover if....".

 

Unit leaders are covered in excess of any personal coverage they might have, or if there is no personal coverage, the BSA insurance immediately picks them up on a primary basis.

 

This I think is incorrect. BSA coverage is primary on registered adults, and excess on unregistered adults (parents) who are acting as leaders. Da exception is vehicle liability (cars and boats) where BSA insurance is excess of the person's vehicle coverage. That's been true since 2001 according to our SE.

 

 

[ScoutNut 147]

BSA states in several different pieces of literature that personal insurance comes first.

 

Just some I found searching the BSA National website :

 

From Training the COR - Local Council Responsibilities :

 

"Provide primary general liability insurance to cover the chartered organization and its board, officers, chartered organization representative, and employees against all personal liability judgments. This insurance includes attorney's fees and court costs as well as any judgment brought against the individual or organization. Unit leaders are covered in excess of any personal coverage they might have, or if there is no personal coverage, the BSA insurance immediately picks them up on a primary basis."

 

From the Guide To Safe Scouting :

 

"Scouting $$$ Pay Liability Claims

The BSA general liability program is not just insurance. In fact, insurance plays a very small part. Our greatest efforts are spent on safety and injury prevention.

 

BSA self-funds the first million dollars of each liability claim. This means that almost all money spent on a liability claim is Scouting money, not insurance money.

 

Accident and sickness insurance pays regardless of fault as long as the accident occurred during an official Scouting activity and the unit or council has purchased the coverage."

 

 

I think this pretty much sums it up. If there is a question about coverage you should ask your council.

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Old document, ScoutNut. I'm pretty sure the "primary coverage for registered volunteers" is in the current charter agreements, least dat's what I remember from recharterin' my units this year.

 

See also da webpages of up-to-date councils like

 

http://www.samhoustonbsa.org/Home/AboutSHAC/Resources/VolunteerInsurance/

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Unit leaders are covered in excess of any personal coverage they might have, or if there is no personal coverage, the BSA insurance immediately picks them up on a primary basis.

 

This I think is incorrect. BSA coverage is primary on registered adults, and excess on unregistered adults (parents) who are acting as leaders. Da exception is vehicle liability (cars and boats) where BSA insurance is excess of the person's vehicle coverage. That's been true since 2001 according to our SE.

 

Beavah,

 

If you look back at the original thread, I posted the web link to BSA's site where I cut and pasted the information from. I wasn't giving my opinion. I was giving you chapter and verse from the BSA. Just go to the BSA site and type insurance into the search box. You'll get a good number of hits, but they all basically lead back to what I posted in the other thread. In fact, the section right before the part I copied and pasted lists the responsibilities of the CO and insurance is not one of them.

[Beavah 205]

I wasn't giving my opinion. I was giving you chapter and verse from the BSA.

 

Yah, SR540. Thanks for demonstratin' how easy it is for well-meaning volunteers to very authoritatively give people the wrong information, eh? It's not enough to quote things, eh? Understandin' is required. The internet is full of old documents. The ones you were pointin' to are in the COR training materials. I don't think they've updated the print ones yet, either. And when you Google the question, you can see immediately that half of the councils out there say one thing, and half say another.

 

A quick phonecall to Phillip Moore at BSA National Risk Management this morning reveals that the BSA liability insurance protection is in fact primary coverage for registered volunteers at scouting functions, with the exception that it is excess coverage for vehicle (boat and automobile travel). This is reflected in the current Charter Agreement (form 28-182Q) which states:

 

"The Council agrees to... provide primary general liability insurance to cover the chartered organization, its board, officers, chartered organization representative, employees and volunteers currently registered with Boy Scouts of America."

 

When asked about the web site pages you mentioned, National Risk Management said "Oh, thanks, we'll pass that along. That comes out of Program, and they have a lot of documents and are sometimes slow to update." Pretty slow, since National confirmed that da expansion in coverage was effective March 2001.

 

the part I copied and pasted lists the responsibilities of the CO and insurance is not one of them.

 

Yah, this is true, eh? The BSA does not require da CO to purchase insurance as a condition of the charter agreement.

 

That's a lot different than whether a responsible CO has or should have its own insurance, eh? Most do. In many cases, it's wise, and inexpensive, for the BSA, the CO, and the individual all to have coverage. I certainly would never want a BSA volunteer to recommend to a CO that it not have its own insurance. That would be a lot like a well-meaning volunteer giving the wrong information, eh?(This message has been edited by Beavah)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Until Phillip Moore of BSA National Risk Management starts going council to council and district to district to teach the COR training materials, the COR's will be learning from the material put out by BSA and taught by well meaning volunteers.....regardless of how "out of date" he says it is.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, dat's the hard part, eh? Volunteers need to understand about the revision cycle on program documents. So the info was updated on charter agreements and sent to council execs, but it takes a long time for everything to get updated. It might be right in da new printed COR training materials; it isn't in my old copy (I just edit my presentations).

 

The oddest thing is how many council websites still have it wrong. Probably a great test of whether your council is on the ball or not. This was, after all, a change that was made over five years ago.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

The Sam Houston council seems to have as decent a web site as any. But any info about national policies found on a local site is 2nd hand at best. And any info about local council policies may or may not have anything to do with any other council, which is the case here.

 

Interesting that in the middle of the page about volunteer insurance is a discussion about filing a tour permit. That just perpetuates the myth that a tour permit is somehow necessary if insurance is to be in force. Also note that the link goes to an old version of the tour permit.

 

Whether insurance is primary or secondary shouldnt matter much to the insured. Which policy pays is something to be worked out between parties that wrote the policies. The important aspect is that the volunteer is covered by one or both of them.