Event Planning: All About Liquor Liability – In this episode we discuss liquor liability.

Emotional Support Animals: An Evolving Approach – This episode contains an excerpt from our Housing Forum on the Road series discussing various approaches to Emotional Support Animals.

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.

June 2021: Topics include COVID-19 vaccine, embezzlement claims & employment practices liability.

January 2021: Topics include planning safer events during COVID-19, COVID-19 employment and vaccine questions and more.

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

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 in insuring a women’s fraternity or sorority is keeping insurance and risk management recommendations contemporary with the changing dynamics of campus life. As chapter membership continues to grow, more members are seeking alternate housing arrangements where several sorority sisters live together.

On campuses where official sorority chapter houses are not as common—or where a specific sorority does not have a designated house—it has become increasingly typical for members to secure off-campus housing together.

Irrespective of the reason, the number of these “living arrangements” outside of traditional chapter housing is increasing. Unfortunately, many of these residences become known as the sorority’s house on campus and sorority-wide parties or events are held on the premises. We refer to these locations as “unofficial houses.”

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.   

A member was injured at a chapter event when she stepped on a piece of glass that was on the dance floor and sustained a laceration to her foot. There was a sign posted at the bar stating that no glass bottles were to be taken onto the dance floor. It was discovered that the chapter did not have a chaperone at the event even though their manual stated that a chaperone should be present at all events. It was argued that had the chapter followed its own policy and had a chaperone at the event, the chaperone would have been there to enforce the rule of no glass bottles on the dance floor.

While there were other factors involved, the argument regarding the chapter not following their policy factored into the decision, and the insurance company settled the claim on the organization’s behalf for $187,500.