[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Pay-to-Fight and SCA Insurance
Poster: Mark Schuldenfrei <schuldy@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Greetings from Tibor.
I don't think the SCA insurance policy protects SCA members individually. I
think it protects the SCA as a corporate entity.
Correct. (I've read the policies themselves).
The argument I have heard in the past for "Pay-to-Fight" was that the
insurance policy is mostly so expensive because of the fighting we do. If
we didn't do fighting it would not be so expensive; therefore the fighters
should pay their share. (I heard this in the West. I don't know if that's
the reason Atlantia has Pay-to-Fight.)
I've never verified one way or another that the above arguement is valid.
It doesn't seem to be. Prices are set mostly on our claims history, and our
sports sponsorship. I suspect (but have not independently verified) that such
insurance prices are about the par for California based sports organizations
that rent facilities on a regular basis.
Our greatest injury rate and risk comes, repeatedly, from kitchens: and not
from combat. Ask any chirurgeon whether they fix broken bones or cut fingers
more often... and one set of salmonella poisoning can take out the entire
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: email@example.com