Re: Pay-to-Fight and SCA Insurance

[Mark Schuldenfrei <schuldy@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

Poster: Mark Schuldenfrei <schuldy@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>

Greetings from Tibor.

Anarra wrote:
  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
army.
  
	Tibor
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org