A resource from Travelers, the insurance company for MJ Sorority clients, with tips for communicating with the media during a crisis or emergency.

Risk management resource geared toward college administrators, but equally applicable to sorority leadership from Travelers, insurance company for MJ Sorority clients.

Non-Owned Automobile Liability is the most commonly misunderstood coverage in the Sorority Book of Business. Non-Owned Automobile Liability is designed to protect the organization for the risk of being named in a lawsuit involving an automobile. It does not protect individuals who are driving on behalf of the Sorority/Fraternity.
Non-Owned and Hired automobiles are automatically covered under the organization’s Automobile Liability policy and are defined as follows:

Hired Autos: Autos you lease, hire, rent or borrow; except autos from your employees and members (for example, vehicles you rent from Avis, Hertz, etc.). When you are renting an automobile on behalf of the organization, there is no need for you to purchase the physical damage coverage for the automobile from the rental car company. Hired Automobile Physical Damage coverage is provided subject to the policy deductibles.

Non-owned Autos: Autos you do not own, lease, hire, rent or borrow that are used in connection with your organization. This includes autos owned by your employees and members but only while used in your organization. Provides coverage for sums you legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident and resulting from the use of a covered auto.

It is important to note that the Hired Automobile Physical Damage coverage extends to direct damage or theft of a rented automobile and operates for the benefit of the insured, which is the fraternity/sorority. Automobile rental agreements, therefore, should always be executed in the name of the fraternity/sorority, rather than an individual’s name.

Any Named Insured using a non-owned or hired auto is an insured, except:

Non-Owned Automobile Liability coverage does not provide coverage for someone who is driving their personal automobile to or from Sorority/Fraternity events. This coverage is designed only to protect the organization, not the volunteer, member, officer, etc. who is driving their own vehicle on the organization’s behalf. Any volunteers, members, officers, etc. who choose to drive their personal automobiles on behalf of the organization need to rely on their own personal automobile coverage in case of an accident.

Individuals who use their own vehicles to drive to/from a sorority event must look to their own automobile insurance for protection should they be involved in an automobile accident.

The exposures associated with the Non-Owned Automobile Liability coverage are particularly concerning from a risk management perspective because of the vast number of personal automobiles that are driven to and from Sorority/Fraternity events at any given time that expose the organization to a Non-Owned Automobile Liability claim.

Further exacerbating the sheer exposure issue with non-owned autos is the number of members, volunteers and third-party individuals who only carry the state minimum automobile liability limits, which are woefully inadequate for accidents involving even minor injuries. For their own protection and fiduciary stability, we recommend that all volunteers and members of your organization carry at least a combined single limit of $300,000. Higher automobile liability limits are marginally more expensive than the state minimum limits, and the higher the limit, the less likely you are to suffer long-term financially consequences to an automobile accident.

Even in situations in which the organization was not negligent in causing the accident, plaintiff attorney’s often use the “deep pocket” mentality when it comes to automobile accidents involving even minor injuries, meaning that the Sorority/Fraternity is seen as the “deep pocket” in the situation. Accordingly, in many of the examples listed below, the organization was brought into the lawsuit because they were seen as having more money and/or higher insurance limits to pay for the cost of lengthy litigation and judgment.

Over the last ten years, under the MJ Sorority Book of Business, the insurance company has paid out over $3.7M in automobile-related claims on behalf of our clients. With the potential for one accident (see examples below) to wipe out ten or more year’s worth of an organization’s Non-Owned Automobile Liability premium, the non-owned automobile exposure is quite disturbing.

Clearly the Non-Owned Automobile Liability exposure is an uncontrollable one, which is what makes it so concerning for our clients. The most important risk management tool in attempting to limit your Non-Owned Automobile Liability exposure is to encourage your members and volunteers to have a minimum combined single personal automobile liability limit of $300,000. In addition, we do not support designated driver programs that are not held in conjunction with an official sorority event (see this position paper on our website for more information). Finally, it is important that the chapter and sorority/fraternity leadership educate their members and volunteers as to how this coverage operates, so that they are aware of the exposure to their personal insurance coverage when they drive to/from any sorority/fraternity event or activity.

The following claim examples are real-life examples of how the Non-Owned/Hired Automobile Liability coverage responds when an incident occurs:
Example #1
Several chapter members were driving to a regional conference together in a member’s personal automobile. The vehicle swerved off the interstate in a single-vehicle accident, and one of the chapter member occupants was killed and another chapter member occupant was severely injured. The families of the killed and injured chapter members sued the driver and the Sorority for damages. The driver of the vehicle only carried the state minimum insurance limit of $25,000, which were quickly exhausted. The organization’s insurance policy settled with both families for a total of $740,000. The sorority was brought into this lawsuit because the driver’s limits were so low and the families of both women felt that someone (i.e. the Sorority) should pay for their loss. In addition, the Sorority’s policies stated that sisters driving vehicles in “official sorority capacity” were doing so as agents of the Sorority, which further hurt the Sorority’s defense.
Example #2
An officer was involved in an automobile accident in a rental car while attending a Leadership Conference. The officer failed to yield the right-of-way in traffic and struck another vehicle, injuring the two passengers in the other vehicle. The insurance company, on behalf of the organization, paid out $252,000 in settlement to the claimant and defense costs and $13,000 in property damages to the rental car company. The insurance company, on behalf of the organization, settled this claim because the officer was driving a rental car, and all cars rented for sorority purposes are covered under the insurance policy.
Example #3
A chapter advisor was driving a few members to the chapter house after a philanthropic event in her personal automobile. She ran a red light and severely injured two people riding on a motorcycle. The advisor’s personal automobile insurance limit was only $100,000, which was exhausted immediately. The total cost of the claim was $2,385,000. The insurance company settled this claim on behalf of the organization because of the deep pocket theory. In addition, the insurance company was unwilling to take the claim to court and risk the jury ruling in favor of two young people with severe injuries

The one word that most aptly applies to a woman’s fraternity or sorority is the word “sisterhood,” defined loosely as collegiate women watching out for each other. It is this very value that has brought about the well-intentioned chapter programs referred to under a variety of titles, the most common being designated driver or “sober sis” programs.

Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has encouraged better decision-making by individuals when drinking and driving. Collegiate young adults are typically less experienced drivers, and, statistically, this age group has a crash rate per mile that is four times higher than all other drivers according to the Institute for Highway Safety. As a result, we are seeing more and more interest in finding ways to keep young adults safe.

Many of our clients chapters have designated driver or “sober sis” programs, in which certain chapter members sign up to serve as designated drivers for other chapter members in hopes of providing safe transportation to and from the chapter house for those members who may be intoxicated. These types of programs are obviously very well-intentioned; however, from a risk management perspective, they surprisingly do more harm than good to the Sorority/Fraternity for some of the following reasons:

As a department, our position is this: we can only support designated driver programs when they are associated with an official event. In other words, from an insurance perspective, requiring various chapter members to take weekend evenings to stay sober and pick up other chapter members from the bars, parties, etc., is a no-no.

The following is a claim example that helps to give real-life substantiation for our position:

Background: The Lambda chapter of Zeta Pi Sorority had a “sober sis” program in which the chapter members would rotate the responsibility of staying sober for a few weekends a semester so that other chapter members would be guaranteed a designated driver on those evenings when they might need a safe ride home.

Scenario: Bridget Jones, Lambda Chapter Member, and several of her friends went out to the local bars for the evening. Because they had been drinking, Bridget called Lambda’s “sober sis” for the evening to come pick up her and her friends and return them safely to the chapter house. Laura Smith was the designated “sober sis” for that particular weekend, so she left for the bars to pick up Bridget and her friends soon after Bridget called. On their way home, Laura came to an intersection with a flashing red light. Believing that the intersection was a four-way intersection, Laura proceeded through the intersection after stopping. The intersection was actually only a two-way intersection with a flashing red light for one direction and a flashing yellow light for the other direction. The vehicle that was coming from the other direction did not stop because he had the flashing yellow light. Subsequently, Laura’s vehicle was struck by the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Bridget suffered injuries to her upper body and face, none of which were life threatening.

Result: Bridget’s attorneys estimated her current medical costs at $250,000, and Bridget sued the following individuals and entities for over $800,000:

*The events described in this case study are based on actual events; however, the names, dates, and several other details have been changed for confidentiality purposes.

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.

[See this article from Fraternal Law titled “Dormant Chapter Houses” for additional information]

Here’s the scenario: a Chapter Advisor calls us and explains that several chapter members have come to her concerned about a fellow chapter member who is exhibiting signs of a severe eating disorder. The Chapter Advisor asks us what to do to avoid any allegations of infringing on the chapter member’s privacy. We receive calls similar in nature to the fictionalized scenario above at least once a week. The individual calling typically sites concerns of violating the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. Although the legislation originally passed in 1974, FERPA has received increased attention more recently following the tragic events at Virginia Tech and the shootings in Arizona. There are a few key facts about FERPA that are especially important for our clients’ leaders and volunteers to keep in mind:

We encourage you to familiarize yourself with your organization’s risk management policies and procedures when a member’s health is at risk. The leaders of your organizations have gone to great lengths to equip you with the resources and tools to know how to handle these types of situations. In emergency situations, we also encourage you to contact the appropriate University officials. Most campuses have trained individuals on staff that deal with emergency situations day-in and day-out.

In 1996, NPC adopted a unanimous resolution regarding peer monitoring.  The resolution states that member groups should refrain from serving as Panhellenic and Greek enforcement officials at social events and that the NPC expects its member groups to resist pressure from university personnel for their members to serve as social event peer monitors.

The resolution was adopted due to concerns that the monitors were not trained and that monitoring imposes a duty of enforcement that cannot be met, which creates a duty where heretofore none existed, therefore imposing negligence on participating groups and the fact that the universities are not indemnifying the monitors for his liability.  There was also some concern about the possibility of one group’s member retaliating against another group for some prior allegation of rule breaking.  NPC’s legal counsel and insurance carrier have advised against peer monitoring.

Since the adoption of this resolution, many universities have attempted to persuade NPC groups to participate in peer monitoring or party checking.  Recently, a question was posted on the AFA listserve regarding peer monitoring and party checking.  Interestingly enough, Mitch Crane, an attorney and member of Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, posted the following response, which goes hand-in-hand with NPC’s resolution:

In most cases, monitors were lax under fear that their own chapters would be sanctioned in return if they enforced the rules.  On two cases, men were threatened physically.  There certainly are some institutions where this type of monitoring appears to be effective – but it takes mature and brave men and women to do it.

Another issue I have raised is the fact that in almost all cases the party monitors are not covered by liability insurance – this puts liability on the individuals and/or the uninsured councils.  In the few cases where the councils and the party monitors are on the institutional liability policy, there is a great exposure to suit if the monitors do not do their jobs properly or if they come and go and an incident occurs later in the evening.

Purely from the point of view of enforcing policy and also protecting oneself from suit, any monitoring of parties should be by the campus police or by another law enforcement agency and not by undergraduates of fraternity and sorority advisors.

We certainly support an organization’s responsibility to hold their own members accountable for appropriate behavior.  To that point, we are in complete agreement that monitoring of social activities outside of one’s own organization should be done by an insured third-party.  You should continue to decline any university request for participation in peer monitoring or party checking activities.

What has emerged since that time is a “modification” of the actions expected under a peer monitoring system.  This comes in the recognition of the flaws of the prior system and an acknowledgement that a modified system, now being labeled “peer observing” could be appropriate within the Greek community. In several recent situations, university professionals were not looking for this to be a group to group enforcement practice, but simply an expectation that each group is responsible for its own self-governance or its own monitoring of the activities.

In that the term “Peer Monitoring” has taken on several different meanings, it may be wise to create a new term which draws from the goal of this practice, which we believe to be that each group is accountable for the actions of its members.

As such, we are inclined to consider this practice differently and would be supportive of a “refreshed” look at the practice and the potential for embracing a new policy on how to achieve the accountability that is being sought of the member groups.

As conditions change, it is important to take another look at how exposures are evolving and the “reform” initiative discussion should effectively accomplish this for our clients.  We wanted to share the risk management and insurance perspective to assist your leadership in tackling this critical challenge.

We understand that this is a difficult issue to tackle, and we want to help you determine how best to manage this exposure. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We are often asked about the worthiness of using liability waivers by our clients. In the past, under the advice of legal counsel, we have taken a somewhat ambivalent attitude toward encouraging our clients to have their members sign waivers or requiring that non-members participating in chapter events sign waivers as we were concerned that the waivers wouldn’t stand up in court.

However, over the past several years, there has been a shift in case law that has caused us to reconsider our position on waivers and releases. This, coupled with the dramatic increase in liability incidents and claims among our clients, has caused us to re-evaluate our position. Our research and the advice of legal counsel now indicates that participant waivers/releases may be advantageous for our clients in two ways prior even to the test of court:

We are now encouraging our clients to utilize participant waivers (both for their own members and for events sponsored by the Fraternity/Sorority with non-member participants) for the following types of events:

We have developed a participant waiver/release template for our clients’ use. Please be sure to read through the waiver in its entirety and make necessary edits so that the waiver applies to your specific event. You will see examples and further information in the footnotes of the waiver/release template.

Once the appropriate waiver has been drafted by included the requested information in the template form, waivers may be distributed in paper or electronic format. If distributed and collected as hard – copies, chapters should either keep the paper copies or scan and save as an electronic file in accordance with your organization’s document retention policy. It’s important that chapters not go to all of the effort of collecting signed waivers to simply dispose of them the day after the event as claims often come much later than that.

A potentially better option is to use a web-based liability waiver platform that will help your chapters create and distribute waivers to participants and then save signed waivers in a searchable database. There are a few websites that offer this. One such company that we recommend is SmartWaiver as we believe that the waiver creation and distribution process is relatively seamless and pricing is reasonable and upfront.

For additional information, please refer to the article published in Fraternal Law (link). Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Estacia Brandenburg, JD, MJ Sorority Client Executive.

As with any non-profit organizations, finding and retaining volunteers can be a difficult task. In addition, an effective organization has a path way for these great volunteers to be able to contribute and rise up the ranks of leadership. All too often, the complex question arises of “whether a volunteer can continue to serve as a local alumna for a chapter or a house corporation once they also assume a national leadership role?” There are two distinct answers to this question.

The first answer is a rejection of this dual capacity service of an alumna. The primary issue is a concern that the national officer may expose the national organization to liability for local entity’s actions, subsequently forfeiting the defense of ignorance of the local entity’s operation.

The second answer – and the one that we think more appropriately applies to the women’s organizations – is that the threat of increased liability from this dual capacity is offset by the distinct advantage that we believe comes from a national officer continuing to provide leadership to the local entity be it a chapter advisory board or a local house corporation board. We see this leadership as a positive for both the national and local entities.

Ideally the national officer should be freed up to focus on this important national position that she has been appointed or elected to do for her sorority. A new volunteer can be added to your ranks to fill the local volunteer position. If this is not possible, then there should be no hesitancy to allow the dual-capacity position of your national officer.

Non-Owned Automobile Liability is the most commonly misunderstood coverage in the Sorority Book of Business. Non-Owned Automobile Liability is designed to protect the organization for the risk of being named in a lawsuit involving an automobile. It does not protect individuals who are driving on behalf of the Sorority/Fraternity.

Non-Owned and Hired automobiles are automatically covered under the organization’s Automobile Liability policy. 

Hired Autos:  Autos you lease, hire, rent or borrow; except autos from your employees and members (for example, vehicles you rent from Avis, Hertz, etc.).  When you are renting an automobile on behalf of the organization, there is no need for you to purchase the physical damage coverage for the automobile from the rental car company.  Hired Automobile Physical Damage coverage is provided subject to the policy deductibles.

Non-owned Autos:  Autos you do not own, lease, hire, rent or borrow that are used in connection with your organization.  This includes autos owned by your employees and members but only while used in your organization.

Provides coverage for sums you legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident and resulting from the use of a covered auto. 

It is important to note that the Hired Automobile Physical Damage coverage extends to direct damage or theft of a rented automobile and operates for the benefit of the insured, which is the fraternity/sorority.  Automobile rental agreements, therefore, should always be executed in the name of the fraternity/sorority, rather than an individual’s name.

Any Named Insured using a non-owned or hired auto is an insured, except:

Non-Owned Automobile Liability coverage does not provide coverage for someone who is driving their personal automobile to or from Sorority/Fraternity events. This coverage is designed only to protect the organization, not the volunteer, member, officer, etc. who is driving their own vehicle on the organization’s behalf. Any volunteers, members, officers, etc. who choose to drive their personal automobiles on behalf of the organization need to rely on their own personal automobile coverage in case of an accident.

Individuals who use their own vehicles to drive to/from a sorority event must look to their own automobile insurance for protection should they be involved in an automobile accident.

The exposures associated with the Non-Owned Automobile Liability coverage are particularly concerning from a risk management perspective because of the vast number of personal automobiles that are driven to and from Sorority/Fraternity events at any given time that expose the organization to a Non-Owned Automobile Liability claim.

Further exacerbating the sheer exposure issue with non-owned autos is the number of members, volunteers and third-party individuals who only carry the state minimum automobile liability limits, which are woefully inadequate for accidents involving even minor injuries. For their own protection and fiduciary stability, we recommend that all volunteers and members of your organization carry at least a combined single limit of $300,000. Higher automobile liability limits are marginally more expensive than the state minimum limits, and the higher the limit, the less likely you are to suffer long-term financially consequences to an automobile accident.  

Even in situations in which the organization was not negligent in causing the accident, plaintiff attorney’s often use the “deep pocket” mentality when it comes to automobile accidents involving even minor injuries, meaning that the Sorority/Fraternity is seen as the “deep pocket” in the situation. Accordingly, in many of the examples listed below, the organization was brought into the lawsuit because they were seen as having more money and/or higher insurance limits to pay for the cost of lengthy litigation and judgment.

Over the last ten years, under the MJ Sorority Book of Business, the insurance company has paid out over $3.7M in automobile-related claims on behalf of our clients. With the potential for one accident (see examples below) to wipe out ten or more year’s worth of an organization’s Non-Owned Automobile Liability premium, the non-owned automobile exposure is quite disturbing.

Clearly the Non-Owned Automobile Liability exposure is an uncontrollable one, which is what makes it so concerning for our clients. The most important risk management tool in attempting to limit your Non-Owned Automobile Liability exposure is to encourage your members and volunteers to have a minimum combined single personal automobile liability limit of $300,000. In addition, we do not support designated driver programs that are not held in conjunction with an official sorority event (see this position paper on our website for more information). Finally, it is important that the chapter and sorority/fraternity leadership educate their members and volunteers as to how this coverage operates, so that they are aware of the exposure to their personal insurance coverage when they drive to/from any sorority/fraternity event or activity.

The following claim examples are real-life examples of how the Non-Owned/Hired Automobile Liability coverage responds when an incident occurs:

Example #1

Several chapter members were driving to a regional conference together in a member’s personal automobile. The vehicle swerved off the interstate in a single-vehicle accident, and one of the chapter member occupants was killed and another chapter member occupant was severely injured. The families of the killed and injured chapter members sued the driver and the Sorority for damages. The driver of the vehicle only carried the state minimum insurance limit of $25,000, which were quickly exhausted. The organization’s insurance policy settled with both families for a total of $740,000. The sorority was brought into this lawsuit because the driver’s limits were so low and the families of both women felt that someone (i.e. the Sorority) should pay for their loss. In addition, the Sorority’s policies stated that sisters driving vehicles in “official sorority capacity” were doing so as agents of the Sorority, which further hurt the Sorority’s defense.

Example #2

An officer was involved in an automobile accident in a rental car while attending a Leadership Conference. The officer failed to yield the right-of-way in traffic and struck another vehicle, injuring the two passengers in the other vehicle. The insurance company, on behalf of the organization, paid out $252,000 in settlement to the claimant and defense costs and $13,000 in property damages to the rental car company. The insurance company, on behalf of the organization, settled this claim because the officer was driving a rental car, and all cars rented for sorority purposes are covered under the insurance policy.

Example #3

A chapter advisor was driving a few members to the chapter house after a philanthropic event in her personal automobile. She ran a red light and severely injured two people riding on a motorcycle. The advisor’s personal automobile insurance limit was only $100,000, which was exhausted immediately. The total cost of the claim was $2,385,000. The insurance company settled this claim on behalf of the organization because of the deep pocket theory. In addition, the insurance company was unwilling to take the claim to court and risk the jury ruling in favor of two young people with severe injuries.

Example #4

A chapter member’s personal automobile was vandalized during the middle of the night in the chapter’s parking lot. The member’s personal automobile policy will need to pay for the repairs because the organization was not negligent in causing the damage, and the member had signed the housing agreement, which holds the organization harmless when personal property is damaged. The organization’s Non-Owned Automobile Liability does not cover property damage to individual’s personal automobiles.

Example #5

A “sober sis” program on a random Friday night led to a claim that cost the organization and the automobile driver’s family nearly $1M. For more information, check out our Position Paper on Sober Sis/Designated Driver programs. A chapter-sponsored “sober sis” program implies that the chapter will put in place proper safety guidelines and have some control over the transportation safety; however, the chapter has little control over an individual driving their personal vehicle and has even less control over the other drivers on the road.

Check out the Insurance Summary for more detailed information about your organization’s automobile policy, but the below graphic has the top three things to remember:

Here is a print-friendly PDF version.

By Travelers Risk Control

We have all encountered scenarios in which other drivers make us shake our heads. People often are quick to accuse other drivers of being reckless, but if pressed, they may admit to sometimes driving recklessly themselves. If unsafe driving is everyone’s problem, what is the solution?

Our safety professionals have put together three tips that can help make sharing the road safer while getting from point A to B.

It can be easy to assume everyone else on the road is paying attention, following traffic laws, and can see you clearly. However, that is not always the case. Next time you are expecting another driver to respect your right-of-way or let you merge into another lane, do not assume they are on the same page. 

Whenever you are on the road, resist the urge to drive competitively. Instead, go with the flow and drive defensively. See yourself as part of a community of drivers – all trying to get to your destinations safely. Your improved driving behavior may rub off on others and help create safer conditions for everyone on the road.

It may be easy to react to aggressive driving by becoming aggressive yourself. But taking the high road is often the best route. Someone cuts you off? Take a deep breath and just let it roll off your back. 

Here are some ways to help prevent your emotions from getting the best of you on the roadway: