| nittanyalum |
07-26-2008 08:11 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.O.C.K.
(Post 1686734)
My question is, how would the settlement have turned out if the fraternity had insurance? Would they be solely responsible for the 4.2 million and the members wouldn't pay?
If so, then the fraternity as a whole does better not having insurance it looks like.
|
I can't imagine an insurance company would give a policy to a fraternity that didn't have very clear stipulations for coverage (isn't that what lead to all the uptick in risk management policies?). So if something happened but the insurance company could show the members were acting in conflict with the coverage stipulations (which I can only imagine would be true in any case that involved heavy/illegal alcohol usage, hazing, etc.), they wouldn't pay anyway and the members would still be on the hook. (at least that's my take on it based on what I know about liability coverage) |
