After the bus dropped the members and their dates off, a member’s date allegedly drove while intoxicated and struck a member and her date. The members date was killed as a result of the accident.
A lawsuit is pending.
The organization was setting up for a charity event when two members of the organization were pushing a student employee on a 25 foot tallescope ladder. The two women pushing the ladder ran over an extension cord on the floor which caused the ladder to topple over and the student employee to fall 25 feet to the ground. The student employee sustained a traumatic brain injury as well as severe injuries to her face, jaw, and teeth.
A lawsuit was filed naming the volunteers, organization and the charity. The University was immune from tort liability because it is both a governmental entity and because it provided workers’ compensation benefits to the injured student employee. It was defense counsel’s opinion that a jury would likely place 25% liability on each volunteer/member, 25% liability on the organization and 25% liability on the University. Even though a jury may have apportioned liability to the University, they would not have had to make any payments. It was also believed that the two members would have been immune from liability based on the state’s Volunteer Service Acts.
The University agreed to waive their subrogation lien of $1,500,000 which aided in the lawsuit settling for $850,000 during mediation. It is unknown if the charity paid a settlement.
July 2021: Topics include transportation risks, wildfires, mental health, & COVID-19.
January 2021: Topics include planning safer events during COVID-19, COVID-19 employment and vaccine questions and more.
May 2021: Topics include mental health, Covid-19 vaccine, and housing agreements.
Use the Chapter House Self-Inspection checklist to review your property and life-safety risk management.
Background
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.
Scenario
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.
Result
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.
Risk management lessons
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.
Issues to discuss
- What safer alternatives are there to a slip-and-slide activity?
- What measures should the sorority chapter have put in place to ensure the safety of events that they are co-sponsoring with another fraternity chapter, especially when the event is being held at the fraternity chapter house?
- What other takeaways can you glean from this example to improve risk management at your location?
Scenario
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.
Issues to discuss
- Do your policies address transportation to and from official events?
- Fortunately, in this situation, the alcohol was served by a licensed, insured third-party vendor. Discuss how using licensed, insured third-party vendors is so important to managing your risk.
- What additional risk management policies should have been in place to minimize the likelihood of a claim like this happening again?
Scenario
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.
Issues to discuss
- Do you have locations that are not official chapter houses that might appear to be chapter houses? If so, what can you do to minimize “unofficial” chapter houses from appearing as chapter houses on your campus?
- How does the traveling consultant’s actions and behavior contribute to the negligence and liability of the sorority?
- What risk management policies should have been in place to minimize the likelihood of a claim like this happening again?
Introduction
One of the most challenging exposures in insuring a women’s fraternity or sorority is keeping insurance and risk management guidance aligned with the realities of campus life. As chapter membership grows and housing needs evolve, more members are living together off campus.
On campuses where official sorority chapter houses are not present or where a specific sorority does not have a designated house, it has become increasingly common for members to secure off-campus housing together.
Understanding the Three Types of Off Campus Houses
Not all off-campus housing presents the same level of exposure. We have identified three distinct scenarios:
- Sorority-Sanctioned Auxiliary Housing – Lower Risk
This type of housing is found on campuses with traditional chapter houses, supplemented by additional residences arranged by the house corporation or national housing corporation. They may colloquially referred to as annexes.
These properties are generally sanctioned, monitored, and aligned with sorority chapter house policies. This paper does not focus on these arrangements. - Unofficial Houses Near Official Chapter Housing – High Risk
Despite the lack of oversight, these houses are often informally viewed on campus as an extension of the chapter. They are often known as the junior/senior house and leases are passed down among chapter members.
On many campuses, the chapter house is not large enough to accommodate all members and the house corporation/national housing corporation has not offered other housing. In these cases, groups of members independently rent a house together that is not owned, leased, or sanctioned by the sorority and residents are not contractually bound by sorority housing rules. - Unofficial Houses on Campuses without Housing – Severe Risk
On a campus where there are no traditional chapter houses, members often make independent arrangements to live in a house together, which functions much like a chapter house. This house is not owned, leased or formally recognized by the sorority, but members may hold meetings there, display their letters on the exterior of the home, and refer to the house as the chapter house.
This third type of unofficial house has become the most problematic to the Sorority Program because of the perception of oversight where there is actually little to no control of activities on the property.
One such property was the site of the largest sorority chapter claim in the history of the department. An unofficial house hosted a party where a student perished due to alcohol consumption. The total cost of the claim will be more than $8,000,000.
Risky Unofficial Houses
For purposes of this paper, we will only focus on the latter two exposures. These types of residences are not sanctioned by the sorority, not leased by the sorority, and operate separately from the sorority. We have dubbed these types of residences “unofficial houses”.
These unofficial houses are increasing in number, and many are becoming known as the sorority’s house on campus. Without traditional oversight and adherence to sorority policy, these residences are the sites of sorority-wide parties and events that would not otherwise be allowed by the organization.
Why Unofficial Houses Pose a Significant Concern
These unofficial houses present serious challenges to both the national organization and to the integrity of the insurance program. The most common issues include:
- Lack of Ownership and Oversight: Unofficial houses are not managed by the sorority or a housing corporation and are not subject to the same safety standards, inspections, or maintenance expectations as official facilities.
- Misunderstanding of Affiliation: While residents may see the house as a private rental, the campus community, including guests, neighbors, and university officials, often perceives it as “the sorority house.” This perception creates a direct association with the organization if and when an incident occurs, exposing the organization to liability not contemplated by your coverage.
- Public Perception and Liability Exposure: When most residents belong to the same sorority, the assumption of affiliation is easily made. Should a serious incident occur, especially one involving alcohol or guests, both the residents and the organization could be named in a lawsuit, regardless of who holds the lease or owns the property.
- Increased Claims Frequency: Claims originating from unofficial houses are increasing, confirming these residences are a growing and very real source of risk.
- Lack of Advisor Oversight: On campuses without formal housing, advisors often have a reduced role, limiting opportunities to reinforce policies, expectations, and safe practices.
- University Acknowledgement: Fraternity and Sorority Life staff frequently refer to these unofficial houses as the sorority’s house, further reinforcing perceived affiliation.
Risk Management Expectations
If an unofficial house exists, it must be managed with heightened awareness, even though it is privately rented and not subject to sorority housing policies.
To reduce risk and minimize exposure, we strongly recommend the following:
Clear Separation from the Sorority
- No exterior identification of any kind (letters, symbols, banners, signs, painted sidewalks, etc.)
- Do not refer to the residence as the chapter or sorority house on campus
- Do not use the address as the chapter’s mailing or official address
Lease and Legal Independence
- The lease must be in the names of individual residents, not the sorority
Events and Gatherings
- Do not host recruitment or social events that could be interpreted as sorority functions
- Do not position gatherings as pre‑game or post‑game events for sanctioned sorority activities
- Do not announce or promote events at the house during chapter meetings or in chapter group chats
Alcohol Awareness
- Be especially cautious with alcohol use and party activity
- Even legal-age drinking can create severe liability if the residence is viewed as affiliated with the sorority
Communication and Oversight
- Notify chapter advisors and/or housing volunteers if there is an unofficial
- Promptly inform national leadership if: the property becomes informally recognized on campus as the sorority’s house or other concerns arise
- MJ Sorority can assist in reviewing and advising on risk mitigation
Next Steps
National leadership has been made aware of this issue due to its increasing significance across the women’s fraternity/sorority community. Local volunteers and advisors are often the first to become aware of these arrangements and serve as a first line of defense to mitigate this exposure. If you learn of an unofficial house associated with your chapter, notify your leadership team promptly.
Leadership may choose to engage MJ Sorority to evaluate and address the specific risks involved at a location. In some cases, it may be necessary to have members living at an unofficial house acknowledge risk management expectations in writing.
Final Thoughts
Private housing does not eliminate public perception. When a residence becomes known as “the sorority house,” the legal, financial, and reputational exposure can be substantial, even without formal affiliation.
MJ’s goal is to ensure members understand these risks and take proactive steps to protect themselves, their chapter, and the national organization.
- Lack of Ownership and Oversight: Unofficial houses are not owned or managed by the sorority or its housing corporation, which often means they do not meet the same safety and maintenance standards as official facilities.
- Misunderstanding of Affiliation: While residents may view the arrangement as a private lease among friends, the broader campus community often perceives the property as connected to the sorority. This perception can create a direct association with the organization if and when an incident occurs.
- Public Perception and Liability Exposure: When a majority of residents are members of the same sorority, it is easy for others to assume the residence is a sanctioned chapter house. Should a serious incident—especially one involving alcohol or guests—occur, both the residents and the organization could be named in a lawsuit, regardless of who holds the lease or owns the property.
- Significant claims activity: We have seen a notable increase in claims arising from these unofficial residences rather than official chapter houses.
- Higher claim severity: In addition to increased frequency, we have also seen a substantial increase in the ultimate cost of claims stemming from unofficial houses. This is often due to the combination of (1) no ownership or oversight by the organization, (2) safety and behavior standards that fall short of what is expected in an official chapter house, and (3) the ease with which plaintiffs can argue affiliation when the house is known locally as the sorority’s residence.
Risk Management Expectations
If such living arrangements exist, they should be handled with a similar level of awareness and caution as an official chapter facility—even though they are privately rented and not subject to sorority policies.
To reduce risk and confusion, we strongly recommend the following:
- No exterior identification of the residence as affiliated with the sorority—this includes letters, symbols, banners, or signage of any kind.
- Avoid hosting gatherings that could be even remotely interpreted as sorority events, such as recruitment functions, celebrations, or social events organized primarily for members or guests of the sorority. Do not announce functions hosted at the unofficial house at chapter meetings or on chapter group chats.
- Be mindful of alcohol use and party activity. Even if residents are of legal drinking age, incidents involving alcohol can quickly lead to liability if the house is viewed by others as “the [sorority name] house.”
- Communicate early with chapter advisors or housing volunteers if this type of housing arrangement exists, so leadership is aware of any potential reputational or liability risks.
- Promptly notify national leadership if concerns arise or if the property has become informally recognized on campus as the organization’s house. We at MJ Sorority can assist in reviewing and advising on the situation.
Next Steps
We have identified this issue to your national leadership, as it represents a growing exposure within the women’s fraternity/sorority community. As a local volunteer or advisor, you may be more aware of these housing situations than headquarters.
If you become aware of an unofficial house affiliated with your chapter, please bring it to the attention of your leadership team. Upon review, they may engage MJ Sorority to assist in evaluating and addressing the specific risks associated with that housing arrangement.
Our goal is to ensure that members understand the potential consequences of allowing a privately rented property to become publicly known as a chapter house. Even without formal affiliation, the perception of connection can create legal and financial exposure for both the residents and the organization.
Scenario
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.
Result
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.
Issues to discuss
- When loaning or leasing the property to other individuals/organizations, we recommend that you refer to MJ’s Position Paper on the topic and contact your Client Executive to discuss further.
- How do your policies address social events at the chapter property? What policies were broken in the above described claim? What policies would have prevented this claim from happening?
- What are some potential risks of renting the chapter property out to a third-party?
Scenario
A member was injured while climbing onto the sorority’s homecoming float. The member was walking along side the float with other members. The float was towards the back of the parade and was starting to fall behind. The walkers were instructed to board the float to speed up the procession. While the member was boarding the float, the driver accelerated. The member was wearing a toga that became entangled in the axle. The member’s body became locked in the axle of the trailer. It is alleged that the member was dragged for 110 feet. The member suffered severe and permanent injuries due to the accident.
A lawsuit was filed naming the University, the City, the driver of the float and the Sorority. The young man who drove and owned the truck and the trailer in which the float was built on had liability limits of $100,000. The City was dismissed from the lawsuit and the University was on the verge of being dismissed based on sovereign immunity. The driver of the truck argued that he was acting as an agent of sorority and the sorority should be vicariously liable for his actions which were allowing individuals to sit in the truck and block the view of the trailer and accelerating before accounting for the whereabouts of the participants. Defense Counsel felt that there was a good chance the sorority would be found to be vicariously liable for the driver’s actions.
The lawsuit settled during mediation for $1,500,000.
Issues to discuss
- How do your policies address events such as the one described above? What policies were broken in the above described claim? What policies would have prevented this claim from happening?
- What additional risk management policies should have been in place to minimize the likelihood of a claim like this happening again?