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.

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.

The chapter hired two buses to take their members and guests to and from an event. One bus had security, but the senior bus did not. On the senior bus, a fight broke out between two members’ boyfriends. One of the young men sustained a broken nose, as well as other facial fractures during the fight. It was confirmed by using Facebook that alcohol was being consumed on the bus.

The claimant’s attorney alleged that the chapter did not provide the property security. He argued that if one bus had security, the other one should also and if it did that his client would not have been injured in a fight. The claim settled for $37,500.

Retentions are used by Chubb Insurance and they are also called deductibles which is more commonly known.  You will find varying retentions depending upon:

After going through the organization’s appeal process in an attempt to have her membership reinstated, a former member filed a lawsuit alleging fraud and breach of contract.  The lawsuit alleged that the organization failed to follow their own internal rules and procedures in terminating the plaintiff’s membership. Throughout the appeal process and the lawsuit, the organization stood by their decision to terminate the plaintiff’s membership. The organization did agree to pay $5,000 to the plaintiff for a settlement, but did not agree to reinstate the plaintiff’s membership.  The defense costs in the matter totaled $66,207.

Two former members accused of hazing alleged that they were not given the required due process in their inappropriate dismissal from the organization.  An actual lawsuit was not filed in the matter. A claim was submitted and the insurance carrier assigned defense counsel who worked with the claimants’ attorney to prove to him that the members were given due process and the termination of membership was appropriate. The claimant’s attorney eventually dropped the claim. However, the insurance company paid over $5,000 in defense costs.