[sac-board] Re: [Fwd: Re: SAC insurance]

Peter, our insurance has never been part of the discussion.  Kimball 
thought it as good as we could get and recommended we stay with it 
unless we find something better.  But this is another discussion we'd 
best stay clear.

Not sure I understand what you are saying, or asking.  Are you implying 
that incorporation can more easily lead to litigation, or just opposite?

At one time Kimball said there is no way to completely insulate yourself 
against litigation.  There are ways you can protect yourself in hopes a 
court will believe you went far enough out of your way to protect 
everyone.  Especially someone who does something dumb and wants someone 
to pay for his stupidity.

At that time K. said the easiest way for SAC to go out of its way to 
protect itself, members and board was the waiver thingy[sic].  Yes it is 
cumbersome, takes some organization, is a headache, takes precious 
storage room at someones house (unless we scan them in and put on CD-ROM).

Unfortunately I don't remember a lot of what he said about problems with 
incorporation.  My guess is the annual paperwork that MUST be done in 
order to keep ourselves, first incorporated and second tax exempt.  This 
most important duty falls to the treasurer and is most likely to be 
overlooked after some time.  Once the papers are not filed, then you 
have to (almost) start the process all over again.  The foregoing is 
only my rememberance of intense discussions late last year.  If anyone 
has something to add to or remove from what K. said, please do.

Peter, your comments are appreciated.  They are directed at the topic 
and not myself, therefore I'm not taking them personally.

Hope this helps,
aj

Peter wrote:

>AJ,
>
>Thanks for relaying Kimball's post. That is certainly good news that he 
>believes our insurance
>policy to be adequate.
>
>I'll have to take exception to the situation he describes regarding the 
>protection afforded by
>incorporation as being only one of many possible scenarios that could lead to 
>a lawsuit. Personally,
>I wouldn't want to be named in a lawsuit (as an officer or director) with my 
>personal assets not
>being clearly (and legally) separated from those of the club. Maybe there 
>isn't any real jeopardy,
>but it wouldn't be a risk I'd be willing to take. That's just me.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sac-board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:sac-board-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>On Behalf Of AJ Crayon
>Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:53 PM
>To: SAC Bored
>Subject: [sac-board] [Fwd: Re: SAC insurance]
>
> 
>At the urging of Thad I did another search of my many archives and came up 
>with the following e-mail
>from Kimball.  I don't think this made it with the three earlier postings.  In 
>this communication he
>addresses the incorporationtopic.  I'll not put my 2 cents in, thereby forcing 
>everyone to read for
>themselves.
>
>Don't try to e-mail Kimball, that address is no longer valid.
>
>Enjoy,
>aj
>
>P.S. - I'm with Rick Rotramel on the monetary subject!
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Other related posts: