Insurer for Sandusky Charity in Pennsylvania Argues Over Payouts

December 27, 2011

  • December 27, 2011 at 10:22 am
    Brett says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Second Mile, perhaps, didn’t purchase the right kind of coverage to address its exposures if its insurer is attempting to get out of this. It’s pretty common, isn’t it, for insurers who represent nonprofits who serve the youth population to include specific coverage for abuse/molestation.

    • December 27, 2011 at 1:19 pm
      Jeff says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      The Company is merely stating the justification for the exclusion of coverage for criminal complaints. You can not insure yourself for criminal activity. Virtually all policies involving operations dealing with minors, will exclude Sexual Abuse / Molestation. Some will allow the organization to buy-back coverage for their vicarious liability, if one of their employees is criminally charged with that offense.

      • December 27, 2011 at 1:44 pm
        Brett says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Right… It seemed like it was extending that justification to civil complaints and the idea that coverage for abuse/molestation liability is ‘repugnant’ when it’s pretty common for that buy back to be in place for orgs, employees, and volunteers of youth-serving social services. They don’t defend criminally, but will defend civilly both the org and the individual unless the individual is found guilty.

  • December 27, 2011 at 10:49 am
    Carol says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why not just come out & say Federal Insurance Co is Chubb.

  • December 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    Bernie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I must have missed the trial. When was he found guilty ? until than there seems there would be a duty to defend.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*