|
Participating in a competitive sport requires the participant to assume the risks inherent in the sport. So says the California Supreme Court. Unless a player, coach, or official affirmatively enlarges the inherent risks of the sport, no liability may be attached to the defendant in a civil case. That is California law, and California is one of the most liberal, pro-plaintiff states in the union.
All other states, even Florida, Texas, and Arizona that I understand tolerate California-like lawsuit environments, likely have doctrines similar to California's assumption-of-the-risk doctrine protecting officials from civil liability.
My point is that insurance is important because it pays an attorney to defend an offical named in an sport-injury lawsuit, but an official actually being held liable for a garden-variety sports injury is remote. So even if NFOA or anyone else lowers the liability limits of the liability coverage available to its members, the insurance is still worth it because there is no limit on the insurer's defense obligations.
|