Use the Chapter House Self-Inspection checklist to review your property and life-safety risk management.

A sorority chapter was having a co-sponsored event with a fraternity chapter on campus in hopes of raising funds for the fraternity’s philanthropy. The event was held at the fraternity chapter house. Some of the fraternity members setup a make-shift slip-and-slide using tarps and spikes. The individuals that setup the slip-and-slide did not push the spikes all the way into the ground. The sorority chapter women had nothing to do with the design of the slip-and-slide.

About twenty minutes after the event started, a non-member guest went down the slip-and-slide and severely injured her leg on one of the spikes that was sticking up from the ground. The claimant’s estimated medical expenses are nearly $40,000. The claimant’s attorney has requested a settlement of $300,000 from the fraternity and sorority in question and has threatened further legal action if that amount is not paid to the claimant within 30 days.

The fraternity’s insurance company plans to offer the claimant a settlement of $100,000, and the sorority’s insurance company has offered to contribute twenty percent of the proposed settlement amount (equal to $20,000) to the fraternity’s insurance company.  

This claim demonstrates that your chapters, volunteers and members can still be named in lawsuits even when they had little to do with an injury occurring other than co-sponsoring said event. In this case, if the sorority had inspected the slip-and-slide and realized the danger that the metal spikes posed (as well as the risks associated with a makeshift slip-and-slide, in general), the injury may have been prevented. This claim demonstrates that your chapters, volunteers and members can still be named in lawsuits even when they had little to do with an injury occurring other than co-sponsoring said event. In this case, if the sorority had inspected the slip-and-slide and realized the danger that the metal spikes posed (as well as the risks associated with a makeshift slip-and-slide, in general), the injury may have been prevented.

Two members attended a semi-formal event in which alcohol was served by a third-party vendor. Both members were over 21 and reportedly had been drinking at the event. It is believed that they were walking home from the party and became disoriented and lost. One member tripped and fell as she walked into the street. The other member tried to help her up, when they were both struck by a car. One member was killed and the other member sustained serious injuries.

At this point, no charges have been filed against the sorority; however, the statute of limitations in the state in question has yet to expire.

A member attended a party at an “unofficial” chapter house.  The “unofficial” chapter house was actually an apartment, in which four chapter members lived together.  The apartment came to be known on campus as your organization’s chapter house.  The member was very intoxicated, and some other chapter members arranged for a fraternity chapter member to drive her home.  The fraternity chapter member accidentally ran over her as he was backing out of her driveway. 

In the discovery process of the claim, it was revealed that a traveling consultant from the national organization had visited with this specific chapter the week before.  The plaintiff’s attorney found evidence that the traveling consultant had participated in drinking games with the chapter members.

The insurance company settled the claim on behalf of the plaintiff for just under $1M.

One of the more challenging exposures of writing a women’s fraternity or sorority is keeping the insurance and risk management recommendations “contemporary” to the changing dynamics of a campus women’s organization.  As the size of the chapter increase in membership numbers, more and more sorority sisters are gravitating to alternate housing where several of them may live together.  On those campuses where sorority chapter houses are not as common and/or a sorority does not physically have a chapter house, it has been common for some of the sorority sisters to secure housing together.

Irrespective of the reason, the number of “living arrangements” outside of a traditional chapter house is increasing and are being referred to and/or being considered by the campus community as the “X Sorority” chapter house.  We refer to these locations as unofficial houses.

These unofficial houses pose a number of problems to the national organizations and, ultimately, to the insurance coverage.  The concerns include the following:

We have seen a significant increase in claims that are coming from those locations that are not the actual chapter house, but instead from these unofficial houses.

We have identified this concern to your national leadership.  We also know that, as a volunteer, you are more apt to be aware of the existence of these types of housing arrangements.  Should you have one of these types of arrangements on your campus, we would ask that you bring it to the attention of your leadership.  Upon their review, we have encouraged them to involve us, if needed, in addressing the housing situation specifically.

The employee fell on the ramp outside the house and injured his leg. The insured disputed the employee’s injury because he was working the next day and was not limping. The injured employee then told the insured he would be off work because the doctor did not know the full extent of his injury without an MRI. Despite the concerns of the insured, the claim was accepted. The employee was released to work, but with restrictions with which the insured could not comply. The doctor requested surgery on the employee’s knee, which the employee wants to do; however due to the employee being overweight, he could not find a surgeon who would operate. The issue is whether the carrier is liable for the injured employee’s gastric bypass surgery, which the employee looked into before the injury. The carrier submitted their opinion to panel doctors, and they found the carrier is liable for the bariatric surgery. The injured worker’s knee surgery is on hold until the bariatric surgery is completed, and the employee is a better candidate for knee surgery.

In summarization, there was an admitted knee injury but due to non-industrial health issues (obesity), the employee’s attorney and adjuster agreed to an Accredited Medical Exam specifically on need for bariatric surgery on industrial basis. The report confirmed the liability on the carrier to provide surgery, which is scheduled soon. The workers’ compensation carrier has paid $59,757 thus far and has set aside an additional $78,884 in reserves (what the carrier expects to pay additionally).

According to a report completed by the Chapter Advisor, there were three chapter members conversing about the fire escape outside the window of the second floor.  One member, who admitted she had previously been out on the escape, showed the other two new members that it was possible to go out onto the fire escape from the window of the room.  The older member successfully got out on the escape.  One of the freshman women attempted to do the same and slipped and fell one story to the ground.  The women fractured her jaw in 8 places requiring surgery, lost 7-8 teeth and received various soft tissue injuries related to the fall from 15 feet.

Parents of member have retained an attorney and a reserve of $350,000 has been placed on the claim by the insurance company.

The fire escapes were used by the house residents as “balconies.”

The prior House Director knew that the residents were using the fire escape as balconies.

The access ways to the fire escape had no signs posted.

A light which was affixed to the wall just above the fire escape was not working.

The witnesses all stated that they have never been advised of any prohibitions against using the fire escape.

A chair was present on the third-floor fire escape which had been present for three years according to one witness.

One witness stated that the house members regularly used the fire escapes as balconies and were never told not to.

A sprinkler head in a closet on the second floor went off resulting in water damage to the first and second floor, as well as the basement. The exact cause of the sprinkler head going off is not able to be determined. It is believed that the heat in the closet may have been a factor.  The expert hired to determine the cause noted that the sprinkler heads in the house were approximately 30 years-old and were either corroded or leaking.

The final cost of this claim was $498,444. There is no subrogation potential against the manufacturer of the sprinkler system or the company who installed it as the House Corporation did not maintain any records regarding when the system was installed or when it was inspected.

A member was using a deep fryer in the kitchen to heat oil. The member walked away to another room, and the fryer caught the cabinet and microwave on fire. The fire damage was contained to the kitchen. However, there was smoke damage throughout the house.

A total of $47,972.09 was paid out for the claim.

A fire broke out in the attic of the chapter house from what they believe was some insulation that fell between the wall and flooring landing on some wires and ignited. The attic was not sprinklered and sustained all of the damage below. However, as the claims progress in the cleaning up and repairing of the attic space, the state building code regulations had to be addressed. The wing where the fire originated was built in the early 1900s, and they could not let the members back into that area until some of the original construction items were upgraded even though they were not affected by the fire (e.g. some of the members had to be moved to other facilities, the insured had to pay for additional meals as the kitchen could not be used).

The code compliance issues drove the cost of claim over $1,000,000.

An extensive fire occurred on the top floor and roof of the chapter facility resulting in a total claim amount of $1,379,877.  Due to the size of the loss, the file was referred to the Subrogation Department immediately. Subrogation Counsel was assigned, as well as a Cause and Origin expert. After the expert’s inspection, the subrogation attorney assigned an electrical engineer to inspect the evidence. The experts were able to identify that an electrician working in the building knocked wiring loose, which resulted in the fire. Upon conclusion of the loss adjustment, a demand package was sent to the electrician’s insurance carrier.  Mediation between the electrician’s insurance carrier and the organization’s insurance company took place. The case did not settle during mediation, but did settle shortly after. The two parties negotiated a settlement and avoided litigation and incurring further litigation costs.  

Members of a sorority loaned their house to a men’s fraternity for a party. The men’s fraternity house was being painted, and they were unable to have a party at their own house. The sorority members did attend the party, but did not provide the alcohol. An underage member of the men’s fraternity was leaving the house when he fell down the front steps, which resulted in him losing his vision in one eye. The young man was intoxicated when he fell.

A lawsuit was filed in the matter against the fraternity and sorority, as well as some of their members. The allegations against the sorority included allegations of failure to supervise their patrons which resulted in the plaintiff being served alcoholic beverages until he was visibly intoxicated. Allegations against the sorority members included failure to supervise and control the fraternity members.

The lawsuit settled for $190,000. The insurance carrier for the sorority paid $154,500. The remaining amount was paid by the member’s personal homeowner’s policy. We do know that the men’s fraternity contributed towards the settlement. However, we do not know the settlement amount.

The defense costs for this claim totaled $329,223. This was a very expensive claim to defend due to individual members being named and additional coverage investigations into whether or not the members were acting on behalf of the sorority.