Insurance

[Stosh 3452]

I have a unit that has raised the question of insurance for the adult leadership. While the registered leaders are covered by BSA liability insurance as the primary provider, the unregistered adults are not. This difference is causing a number of our parents to question their participation and feel that because of their situation it would be better to leave transportation and supervision responsibilities to only registered leaders.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Stosh

[GKlose 24]

Maybe it's just me, but I think 10 minutes (to fill out a form), 10 bucks and yet another CORI form is a small price to pay for insurance.

 

Guy

[Buffalo Skipper 13]

Transportation liability (secondary after driver's is expended) is covered for leaders and non-leaders alike with the completion of a Tour Permit. Likewise, I believe that a parent (as a participatory parent) would likewise be covered on outings under the umbrella of Tour Permits.

 

This is a clarification which your DE or SE will be better equipped to answer exactly.

[Stosh 3452]

It's cheaper yet to just to say no and let someone else deal with the hassle.

 

Add to that the increased cost of higher limits on the auto insurance and it's a lot more than "just a few bucks."

 

It used to be everyone just jumped in Mrs. Smith's car and off we went to camp. It's not that simple in today's world.

 

Everyone's starting to read and re-read the fine print in more than just the labels on food products.

 

Everyone is entitled to full disclosure on insurance policies. Has anyone seen what the BSA policy really does and doesn't cover? Even as a registered leader there are enough questions being raised that it has peaked my interest as well.

 

Stosh

[The Blancmange 67]

 

Add to that the increased cost of higher limits on the auto insurance and it's a lot more than "just a few bucks."

The minimums required by BSA are 50K/100K or 100K CSL. While this is more than most states' mandated minimum, it's a bad idea to be driving around with less than the 50/100, if only for the UM/UIM coverage when some knucklehead with no insurance runs into you. Some insurance agencies have a 100/300 agency minimum, where they won't sell you less than this, which I consider to be responsible advice. Also, unless the driver is in a high risk category (in which case I don't want my kids riding with them), the cost of going from 20/40 or 25/50 to 50/100 is usually pretty minimal.

I agree with the rest of your post about the need to provide better info about who/what is covered.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Seems like da parents in your troop aren't understandin' the system right, jblake47.

 

For transportation, there is no difference between registered and unregistered adults on a trip. In all cases, da BSA general liability coverage is excess and comes into play only when the auto owner's insurance is exhausted. That's why the BSA wants auto owners to have some minimum coverage in place, eh? If the minimum coverage is in place, then da BSA doesn't have to pay that amount, which reduces the BSA's exposure. But whatever the case, beyond your auto deductible, the BSA is goin' to be there to back you up, registered or not. Even if your auto insurance is expired. Even if you have not filed a tour permit. Even if you were speeding and ran the red light.

 

For supervision responsibilities on the outings, they're right. Only registered leaders are covered on a primary basis by the BSA liability coverage, eh? This makes sense, since it's goin' to be the registered leaders (SM, etc.) who are the ones that are goin' to be named in a suit and likely to be found to have a duty of care, since they were holdin' themselves out to the kids and the parents as being responsible leaders. Parents participatin' on a trip are just parents in the eyes of the court, eh? They're responsible for their own kid, but they don't have a (legal) duty to supervise other people's kids. So they're less at risk, unless they go off da reservation and start countermanding the SM and such, in which case they probably should have some responsibility. Now that's an oversimplification and there are certainly times (parent volunteers to be lifeguard) where it's not the case, but it's da rough outlines.

 

So if you're really using parents to lead/supervise kids, then yah, for sure, they should be registered and background checked and trained, and they should be competent to lead/supervise the activity. But if you're usin' parents as transportation and adult campers, then it ain't much of an issue.

 

Either way, the parents are covered by the BSA's general liability policy as excess coverage. So they're still protected, eh? Just means that their homeowner's insurance (if any) is goin' to come into play first, and the BSA and its insurers will take over after that. So aside from the liability deductible on their homeowner's, they aren't goin' to take a personal hit. Even if they have no other coverage. Even if yeh did not file a tour permit. Even if they did somethin' really dumb in violation of G2SS.

 

Go talk to your council business manager or Field Director and ask 'em to come out and do a presentation to your parents. The BSA coverage is really a great thing, and it's there precisely to put leaders and parents at ease so you don't run into this. That's why those training nitwits who make stuff up about "the insurance won't cover you!" do such a disservice to the BSA. BSA goes well out of its way to take care of its volunteers, registered and not, so that they have no fear of givin' their time to the boys.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh 3452]

I'm to assume then that members of the CO that are not parents are not covered at all during an activity under any circumstances if they happen to be at the same activities?

 

Stosh

[Oak Tree 15]

I'm not sure I'd say "not covered at all under any circumstances" - but can you elaborate? Why would you think that they would be? Were they invited to come along with the unit? Are they potential recruits? Have you asked them to help supervise?

 

I'll point out that there is also the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (here: http://www.doi.ne.gov/shiip/volunteer/pl_105.19.pdf), which protects individuals performing services for nonprofit organizations.

 

Commentary here: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/horselaw/volunter.htmThe New Federal Law. On June 18, 1997, the President signed into law the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. The purpose of this law is to assist non-profits and governmental entities in their efforts to recruit and retain volunteers for their activities. It does so by providing immunity from and limitations on liability for harms caused by volunteers in the course of their volunteer activities.

 

Immunity means that the volunteer who harms another by conduct engaged in as a volunteer for a nonprofit organization or governmental entity is not liable for and cannot be successfully sued for the harm inflicted. The organization or entity can be sued, but not the volunteer personally.

 

This new law applies to any harm caused on or after September 10, 1997, the effective date of the legislation.

 

Of course, the new law applies to any non-profit organization or governmental entity, not just to those that are particularly worthy because they focus on horse activities.

 

Who is a Volunteer? The federal law defines volunteer very broadly. It is defined to mean an individual performing services for a nonprofit organization or a governmental entity who does not receive -- (A) compensation (other than reasonable reimbursement or allowance for expenses actually incurred) or (B) any other thing of value in lieu of compensation, in excess of $500 per year. The statute protects a volunteer serving as a director, officer, trustee, or direct service volunteer.

[Beavah 205]

I'm to assume then that members of the CO that are not parents are not covered at all during an activity under any circumstances if they happen to be at the same activities?

 

Yah, I'm not quite sure what you're askin' here, eh? "Under any circumstances" is one of those broad things where the answer is always "no." If a person just happens to be at the same activities then I'm not sure what yeh think their exposure is? They likely have no duty of care.

 

In general terms, the BSA liability policy covers any adult volunteer or youth who is a named defendant in a (negligence) tort action arising from a scouting activity. Those folks who do have a duty of care to the boys or the landowners and are therefore potentially liable if they breach that duty and cause harm.

 

Beavah

 

[AlFansome 10]

As a Chartered Org Rep, I should also add that BSA liability also covers the CO quite fully as well. From the typical (standard?) Charter Agreement between the Council and the CO, we have that 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. Coverage is provided with respect to

claims arising out of an official Scouting activity with

the exception that the coverage is excess over any

insurance which may be available to the volunteer

for loss arising from the ownership, maintenance, or

use of a motor vehicle or watercraft. This insurance

is only available while the vehicle or watercraft is in

the actual use of a Scouting unit and being used for

a Scouting purpose.

 

The insurance provided unregistered Scouting

volunteers through the BSA general liability

insurance program is excess over any other

insurance the volunteer might have to his or her

benefit, usually a homeowners, personal liability,

or auto liability policy."

 

 

Note the bit about "unregistered Scouting volunteers". My read is that if someone is volunteering at a Scouting outing or in service to the unit (especially if a member of the CO), then they're covered.

[Stosh 3452]

I think I have the answers from the comments made. The question arose when members of the CO wanted to help out with the Crew but held back for liability reasons. We always had a trained, registered adult with the crew, but at times when CO members were asked to be a second adult when the trained registered leaders needed to leave the area for a short period of time. It isn't a big deal, but I was unsure of the legal recourse if something should go wrong. If two leaders were with the crew and one needed to leave to get something from their car or perform a task away from the area, that would leave the crew short of two-deep adult leadership. We would just ask one of the CO's there if they could stand in for an hour or two. Most of them didn't have a problem, but a few did. I just began to question the practice myself and needed more information on the subject.

 

Stosh

[Beavah 205]

Yah, two-deep isn't meant to be an "every second of every day two adults have to be hovering" thing, eh? Two deep means that you brought two adults on the outing, so if one gets sick or hurt or whatnot yeh aren't leavin' the kids leaderless. The adults on an outin' are allowed to go to the bathroom or go to their car and such without needin' to bring in a third person .

 

I assume this is your re-enacting crew, and so you're talkin' about fellow adult re-enactors from da CO. Yah, no problem if they're volunteering to supervise on a short-term basis. Insurance is in force as excess coverage. But I reckon that in a lot of cases a person who is reluctant to supervise kids shouldn't be put in a position where they have to, eh? That reluctance probably means somethin' about their comfort level and competence at the task.

 

If your folks are really worried about it, yeh can ask the council office for a certificate of insurance or a rider listing the other adults in the CO as named additional insured on the policy for events. This is a routine thing and done all the time when landowners and such want coverage or documentation to allow a unit to use their facilities.

 

Beavah

 

[IM_Kathy 32]

something you all might want to consider... something my son's troop does and the girl scout unit I work with does...

 

troop/unit pays the adults registration as long as they are active members in supporting the program. whether by driving, camping, etc...

 

really stinks to ask "who will volunteer for ____" and then say "oh thank you, and now we'll need $___ from you"

[Stosh 3452]

I agree Kathy, but then one opens up the door to all the DOB, SS#, background check, etc. that some are not comfortable with.

 

As far as 2-deep is concerned, we have our boys in a very dangerous environment with reenacting. Guns, bayonets, black powder in paper rolls, fire, etc. and we try to keep the adult away time to a minimum. As far as the CO members helping out, it's not a problem with being with the boys, it's a problem with the legal insurance issues.

 

I have felt we were always covered, but when they questioned it, I, too, became doubtful and began to second guess myself. Now I have some sources to assist with explanations. I never have worried from within the group because the boys are threatened to within an inch of their lives on safety and even a very minor infraction will have them sitting on the sidelines. That applies to any adult as well and the boys have always respected that. The only real concern I have always held in the back of my mind is what would happen if someone outside the realm of what we can caution for that would affect our boys, our leaders and our CO members.

 

Stosh