Insurance

[Gold Winger 9]

Not wanting to take Beaver's or Viki's word, I went to the source. I called Irving Texas and spoke with the mayor. Just kidding, I spoke with BSA's Office of Risk Management.

 

The lady that I spoke with said that the wording in BSA's policy says that "willfull and wantfull misconduct" will not be covered and that could be deliberate disregard of the G2SS. She went on to say that if the courts decide that you were criminally negligent, you are own your own as well.

 

EOD.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[Beavah 205]

Exactly. Glad yeh finally took the time to do that, GW.

 

Now, did yeh understand what "willfull and wanton [not 'wantfull'] misconduct" means? Those are legal terms of art, that have a particular meaning in our legal system. They could indeed include deliberate disregard of G2SS, under certain very limited circumstances as I have described in previous threads on the topic.

 

You can look these legal terms up on any on-line law dictionary.

 

willful adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious and directed toward achieving a purpose. [it is sometimes a synonym for malicious]

 

wanton adj. grossly negligent to the extent of being recklessly unconcerned with the safety of people or property. Examples: speeding by a school while it is letting out students or firing a shotgun in a public park.

 

We put da two together, and we have "that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it", which is the definition of intentional tort that we discussed before.

 

No need to trust da silly Beavah again. You can go visit any law library and pick up an introductory text on tort liability and insurance. The quote above is from a text called da Restatement (Second) of Torts, but yeh can look in any introductory text on Tort Law.

 

Da real thing to note is that the Guide to Safe Scouting is not mentioned in the insurance contract language as an exclusion. Therefore da G2SS does not define the terms of coverage for da BSA's insurers. Which of course we all knew because the BSA said that directly in the court papers of the Utah forest fire case (where, you'll recall, da BSA's insurers covered 6.5M of damages despite violations of NCS standards and G2SS).

 

Very best,

 

Beavah

 

[Gold Winger 9]

Well, she said "wantfull" or maybe it was her accent. I thought of wanton but that's not what it sound like.

 

Let's see . . .the willfull act is going whitewater rafting with CubScouts, that's also pretty wanton.

 

Don't see that I need to take your word for anything.

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[dan 10]

I know I should not, but I cannot resist this thread anymore!

 

I thought you said you where Ending the Discussion?

 

I guess it must have really been End of Data. Or maybe it was a song?

 

Darn and I missed what was written before it was edited.

 

I will follow the GTSS to the best of my ability.

I will try to not be criminally negligent. BUT I will not worry that the BSA insurance will or will not cover me, life is to short.

 

 

But you tell me

Over and over and over again, my friend

Ah, you dont believe

Were on the Eve

of Destruction.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

[deleted because it was a response to comments edited by a staff member which now don't make any sense ](This message has been edited by Beavah)

[scoutldr 732]

I'm not a lawyer...so caveat emptor.

 

I have always heard of the "reasonable man" theory. That the courts will consider, "what would a reasonable man of sound mind and body" be expected to do in a civilized society.

 

For your consideration: a "Reasonable Scouter" is one who has taken the training for his position, has at least read the G2SS for the activity he is embarking upon, will not take unreasonable risks with his or other's lives, will follow all laws and applicable BSA policies, and will know his own physical limitations and those of the kids in his charge.

 

Not doing so would be considered "negligent".

 

Did I miss anything?

[Beavah 205]

Nuthin' much wrong with that, scoutldr, that's one of the elements of establishing negligence, eh?

 

Where yeh miss is that the standard of care or "reasonable man" isn't defined by Scouting's regulations/policies, but by the broader world. What is reasonable for a volunteer in a youth outdoor program? Would an ordinary parent volunteer in a church youth program do this? Would a teacher or an experienced river guide or paddler do this?

 

You can not follow da G2SS and still not be negligent.

 

You can follow the G2SS to the letter and still be negligent.

 

Just depends what the standard of care is in the broader world.

 

But if yeh are found negligent, that's what insurance is for. Insurance covers us when we do something wrong.

 

So the moral of the story is that we as scouters act prudently because we care about keeping kids safe. We would do that if G2SS didn't exist, eh? But it's a useful guide, so we read it, and we read other good guides, and we get training from da BSA and we get training from Red Cross and other places. All because we care about kids, not because we care about lawyers.

 

And if, some day, we screw up and something bad happens, then the law and insurance are there to protect us. That's da BSA's commitment to its volunteers and CO's, and the reason for insurance in the first place. To support us even when we were dumb.

 

Beavah

 

[scoutingagain 20]

I know I shouldn't jump in here but...

 

Scoutldr,

 

I'm an not a lawyer either, but like you am a H&S pro and deal with regulatory interpretations and lawyers quite frequently. They happen to surround my office.

I also worked in the insurance industry for a dozen years or so.

 

I would agree with your interpretation of a "reasonable man" in the context of scouting. And a leader that acted otherwise would be negligent in my opinion. However simple negligence would not eliminate coverage by insurance.

 

In the example GW gave, to have insurance coverage voided, at least as I understand Beav's position(which I agree with), the Leader that took a group of Cub Scouts on a Whitewater rafting trip,(clearly against G2SS bold type policy) would have to do so with the intent to do the scouts harm or get one of them drowned.

 

If the Leader was never trained, took the boys on a rafting trip and was simpley "negligent" in his duties as an adult leader, with no intent to do harm or expect his actions would cause harm, he would still be covered.

 

 

SA

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

If BSA insurance coverage won't cover violations to the G2SS, why don't we hear any stories of scout leaders being hung out to dry? Any? All we hear is the BSA covering incidences of bad scouts being covered (e.g. Utah forest fires). Does anyone have one case where the BSA insurance did not apply?

[Vicki 11]

GW, since I have been specifically addressed as one whose word is somehow lacking veracity (which is fine, proofs are a good thing, but this debate is getting silly) - different professions have very specific meanings for the words used - willful (one l) and wanton (not wantfull) being very specific words with very specific meanings in the legal profession. Beavah (not Beaver) defined them quite nicely and demonstrated that endless patience that OGE referred to in one of the endless Ed/Merlyn threads. Others have chimed in from their experience and education. I said my say in the thread that begat this one (on blue cards).

 

But we can belabor this point, especially for the benefit of anyone who might come along and perhaps be concerned. As others (and I) have posted in various ways, insurance is for when accident/stupid happens and cases are handled individually. The council office I spoke with didn't know of a single case where insurance didn't cover someone. I don't believe, in any of the numerous discussions on the topic, anyone in this forum has come up with one. Court costs have been incurred, if I remember one thread correctly, but that's not the same thing. Not quite QED, but the anecdotal evidence seems conclusive enough.

 

And you flushed a couple more folks out of the brush to share their experience, always helpful.

 

Vicki (not Viki)(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[Gold Winger 9]

A couple of funny things happened this week.

 

Considering that Beaver, et al keep telling me to ask the professionals for clarification, the first is hilarious. At a district meeting, the DE, with no prompting from me, announces that we should make it clear to our units that need to follow G2SS and make sure that all of their paperwork is complete or that we (meaning BSA) may elect to withold insurance coverage if something goest awry.

 

The other was that a friend who has been practicing law in DC for over 30 years answered my questions about these issues. He said, like Beaver did, that in a case where I ran you down with my car, it would have to be shown that I intended to run you over to be considered willfull. He agreed with my thoughts on the Scouting issues where a trained leader deliberately ignores published safety rules and something goes bad, in that case he says that the act of deliberately violating the safety rules would allow BSA to cut him adrift.

 

Whether BSA ever would do this is irrelevant. Rules need to be examined for validity at the extremes (0 and infinity) and if we lived our lives based on likelyhoods that something bad would happen, none of us would wear seatbelts or lock our front doors. I lock my doors because someone may try to enter without my permission. I wear my seatbelt because I may be involved in an accident. I follow BSA safety rules because they may decide to make an example out of me.

[local1400 10]

And all this time I thought wanton was just good soup!

[Vicki 11]

No, that would be wonton:

[Gold Winger 9]

My mind is never at rest, it is always moving forward, ever forward toward Znerflot.