The U.S. has learned from Japan that retrofitting buildings to withstand earthquakes can save lives and reduce losses. Click the link to watch a video from AM Best discussing retrofitting. “Earthquake Retrofitting Saves Lives, Reduces Losses” (April 2021)

FAQs: Commercial Kitchens – In this episode we discuss all sorts of cooking and kitchen related questions that we hear most often.

Click here for a guide on what to do before, during and after a storm.

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.

We recommend that you complete a House Inventory Checklist and review it once a year (note about this resource: we have made this resource available in Excel because it has built-in formulas for easy manipulation and calculation. Once you click on the link, you can click on the download link in the upper righthand corner to edit your own version). For more information about the property coverage, please click here.

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

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.