Insurance null and void IF?

[BigUmpire]

If an umpire calls a game where there :

1.    Less than the required number of players to field a team

2.   Game where pick-up players and/or borrowed are used

3.   A  pick-up game

4.   A practice game

Is the umpire:

1.    More liable for injuries suffered during any of the above games?

2.    Not insured at all.

We have some umpires claiming that their insurance is void IF the call any “non sanctioned” games/event

I carry NASO and ABUA insurance and cannot find any exclusions in either policy BUT did not read all fine print

 

Comments please

[scrounge]

My comment is as follows:

Read the fine print

[noumpere]

3 hours ago, BigUmpire said:

If an umpire calls a game where there :

1.    Less than the required number of players to field a team

2.   Game where pick-up players and/or borrowed are used

3.   A  pick-up game

4.   A practice game

Is the umpire:

1.    More liable for injuries suffered during any of the above games?

2.    Not insured at all.

We have some umpires claiming that their insurance is void IF the call any “non sanctioned” games/event

I carry NASO and ABUA insurance and cannot find any exclusions in either policy BUT did not read all fine print

 

Comments please

NASO used to cover more than some of the other insurances.  For example, 1 and 4 above would be covered (iirc, of course).

 

I do agree that the best course would be ot read the policies and / or to talk to the companies involved, rather than asking us mopes for our unenlightened opinions.

[BigUmpire]

Hard to believe guys the fine print is ambiguous in an insurance policy.

I have pings into NASO and ABUA now.

Will post when I get an answer.

 

[noumpere]

21 minutes ago, BigUmpire said:

Hard to believe guys the fine print is ambiguous in an insurance policy.

Most policies can be summarized as:

We Cover EVERYTHING!*

 

* -- except what actually happens

[MooseLoop]

A few years ago when I was still a lawyer, I looked into this casually as a follow-up to a discussion my association had about not continuing to officiate after the game ended on a runs-ahead rule.  I tracked down the actual policy, which said something like it covered all umpiring activity, with no express exclusion for any "not-a-real-game" umpiring.  My opinion thus was that the policy did cover any umpiring activity, even "not-a-real-game" umpiring. Also, I believe courts construe ambiguous language, especially in insurance policies, against the drafter (i.e., the insurance company), strengthening my opinion.  But don't quote me.  

I also knew that my state supreme court had some years earlier spelled out a strong assumption-of-the-risk rule for participants in any sports activity, so I felt doubly protected from liability.  (If I recall correctly, the case was a gung-ho jerk in a Super Bowl party halftime touch football game caused grievous bodily injury to a non-athletic woman; held: he was not liable because she assumed the risk of all injury by participating in the game).  Your state's mileage may differ.  In fact, I believe that at least in my state, umpire insurance premiums are essentially donations to the insurance company, except for paying for a defense lawyer and for a satisfying superfluous sense of security.  Of course, I'm a cynic.

Disclaimer: Insurance coverage was never my specialty, I relied only on superficial research and law school knowledge, and I am no longer a lawyer.  But I still believe my opinion is correct.  I would like to hear of any final trial verdicts (not settlements) holding umpires liable for any umpiring activity.  Preferably with citations to an official source, and not to friends of cousins.

But it is a foolproof way of declining to continue to umpire games that are going to come unglued because the participants no longer consider them for real.  

[ousafe]

On 9/5/2017 at 12:34 PM, BigUmpire said:

Hard to believe guys the fine print is ambiguous in an insurance policy.

I have pings into NASO and ABUA now.

Will post when I get an answer.

 

@BigUmpire sorry to bring this back from the dead, but what were the answers from NASO and ABUA?

[ilyazhito]

On a similar note, wlll insurance cover me if I work as an "extra" umpire for no pay (e.g. as a 3rd umpire on a game with 2 paid umpires)? I am a NASO member, and I would like to get 3-man experience, but there aren't many leagues that do use 3 umpires for games, at least not on a paid basis. 

[BT_Blue]

1 hour ago, ilyazhito said:

On a similar note, wlll insurance cover me if I work as an "extra" umpire for no pay (e.g. as a 3rd umpire on a game with 2 paid umpires)? I am a NASO member, and I would like to get 3-man experience, but there aren't many leagues that do use 3 umpires for games, at least not on a paid basis. 

Maybe call or email NASO directly. Here in Washington state, we will do this at the end of the High School season as we are covered under the state insurance. However, since we are now fully covered, state wide, by NASO... I wonder if that is still the case?

(SIDE NOTE: I also have worked in Oregon, and they do not allow you to work 3 man unless the game is assigned as such.)

[MooseLoop]

12 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

Maybe call or email NASO directly.

Or get a copy of the actual policy and read the coverages and exclusions of that particular policy.

[BT_Blue]

2 hours ago, MooseLoop said:

Or get a copy of the actual policy and read the coverages and exclusions of that particular policy.

Some times that doesnt always work. Especially if you cant read legalese.