Law Suits

[GarthB]

A while back, one official, I believe one of our Texas brethern, stated that he had done some research and could not find evidence of law suits against officials being ruled against the official. Or something to that effect. I think the official making that statement worked either in the insurance or law fields.

Two nights ago at a football officials association meeting, the head football clinician and member of the rules committee for the Washington Interscholastic Activities Assocation, our state body which coordinates with FED, spoke to our group. He said the NFOA was a shell of its former self and would probably cease to exist soon. He stated that it no longer lists it own board on its web site and had cancelled all conferences and clinics. (In response to that, the states of Oregon, WA, Idaho, Montana and Alaska will hold their own officials conference next August at the Sea-Tac Marriot)

The reason given was that when "suits are filed against schools they include officials and FED and NFOA", and "that last year alone FED paid out over 3.5 million dollars, beyond the insurance coverage, to settle suits and claims that were filed, including those filed against officials."

He went on to say that the official's insurance coverage offered by what is left of NFOA has been reduced for this year. I went to the NFOA website and saw this notice:

NOTICE TO ALL NFOA MEMBERS: There have been significant changes in the insurance coverages provided to NFOA members for the period of 08/01/02-07/01/03.

I have no other source at this time with which to check this official's statements. But on the surface it appears he is telling the truth.

My questions

1. Can anyone verify that indeed there have been losses in suits that included the official?

2. Does anyone know the status and future of NFOA?

3. Do we need to now explore extra insurance coverage to cover our butts?

[bob jenkins]

There's an article on this in the most recent Official's Quarterly.

Rates for individuals have increased from $16 to $30. The $1 million liability remains; fee loss coverage has been eliminated. Excess accident medical coverage and excess death benefit have been reduced.

A detailed summary of coverage is available at http://www.nfhs.org and http://www.bollingerinsurance.com (that's the name of the new carrier).

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by GarthB

My questions

1. Can anyone verify that indeed there have been losses in suits that included the official?

2. Does anyone know the status and future of NFOA?

3. Do we need to now explore extra insurance coverage to cover our butts?

Garth my question (since the cases were setlled) would be

What type of lawsuits to begin with?
What no-one checking bat specs and someone got hurt with any illegal bat? In other words that's a lot of money to be settled, so it would be important to know the exact nature of these lawsuits.

Also, as far as your question number 3 goes I believe most of us have add'l coverage anyhow whether through NASO or Official.com

Perhaps we are seeing the TRUE results from an overall shortage of officials. Are untrained officials being sent out to do games? Also, what kind of training do they actually receive?

As far as I know, all one needs to do in order to get HS certified is pass the test and attend the minimum number of meetings and you can officiate with little or NO experience whatsoever.

As long as you are a warm body you will officiate. Also, do the lawsuits break down by what type of sport? In other words how many settlements were baseball related, football related etc.

Perhpas Tim Stevens or Kyle know the answer to this

Thanks for the info

Pete Booth

[Tim Stevens]

I do know that most of what has been stated is accurate. The fee increase, as I understand it, applies only to those states that do not have 100% membership.

The NFOA insurance is a part of the overarching NFHS insurance structure, and is subject to the overall claims made against NFHS. I do know that the NFHS suffered some significant losses in the past year or so related to injuries incurred within the structure of NFHS rules. While the tendency is to cast a jaundiced eye at officials, as I understand it the biggest culprit was the 3' depth minimum in swimming pools. As I understand it, a couple of head/neck injuries related to this were huge issues, and the minimum has now been increased to 4'.

I don't have a lot of details on the whole picture, and don't know how much I can shed on the subject yet. I do know, however, that litigation has indeed been an issue with NFHS, and the repercussions are already being felt by both the officials' and coaches' association.

[insatty]

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.