DISCUSSION TOPICS Wha hat’s ’s t the he R Risk? k? • • Understanding what it means for your LCO to engage in fixed anchor replacement • High level overview of a potential claim against an LCO • Volunteers conducting fixed anchor replacement • Paying for fixed anchor replacement Mitigation S n Strategies: : • • Waivers for Installers • Best Management Practices • Insurance coverage • Legal Defense Costs Present ntation i n is i inf nforme med b by t y the he S Salt lt L Lake C Cli limb mbers A Alli llianc nce’s ’s e experienc nce s stand nding ng • up a a rebolt lting ng i ini nitiative i in t n the he W Wasatch F h Front nt ( (WARI— I—Wasatch A h Anc ncho hor Repla laceme ment nt Ini Initiative)
Understanding what it means for your LCO to engage in fixed anchor replacement • Root C Causes o of t the he R Risk E k Exposure: : • Installation Risk • Post-Installation: • Failure of Fixed Anchor • Ongoing Maintenance • Monitoring/Documentation
EXISTENTIAL LCO QUESTION ON FIXED ANCHORS § Is the installation of fixed anchors at the core of your LCO’s mission? § Insulating the risk by having another entity other than the LCO do the work (Red River example—SUCKA) § SLCA chose to engage in replacement as the SLCA based on past practice and member survey results § Fund raising value—we have been publicizing our efforts as part of our development efforts § SLCA Board ultimately concluded replacing aging bolts in the Wasatch is part and parcel of carrying out its mission
LCO’S LEGAL LIABILITY RISK FOR INSTALLING FIXED ANCHORS Is Is a an L n LCO’s ’s i involv lveme ment nt i in i n ins nstalli lling ng f fixed a anc ncho hors a a z zero-r -risk p k proposition? n? § NO NO, an LCO may be sued by an injured climber/installer who is injured as a result of the failure of a fixed anchor. § Note: No known claims or cases. § If no claims or cases, why should we be concerned about this liability? § Climbing is rapidly growing and so with this growth there will be more access related issues, namely safety based concerns on aging fixed anchors. § LCOs are and will become more developed organizations—WE CAN’T JUST WHISTLE PASS THE GRAVEYARD § LCOs need to manage risk just like an other organization managing the risk associated with its mission critical activities § GOAL= MINIMIZE THE LCO’s RISK EXPOSURE, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, CAUSED BY ENGAGING IN FIXED ANCHOR REPLACEMENT
INJURED CLIMBER’S HYPOTHETICAL LEGAL CLAIM AGAINST THE LCO Inju Injured C Cli limb mber’s ’s c cla laim: T m: The he L LCO ne negli ligent ntly i ly ins nstalle lled the he b bolt lt a and nd s sho hould ld b be he held ld li liable le f for hi his i inju njuries. . Ge Gene neral R l Rule le: p : persons ns ha have a a d duty t y to u use reasona nable le c care to a avoid i inju njury t y to o othe hers and nd ma may b y be he held ld li liable le i if t the heir c carele less c cond nduct i inju njures a ano nothe her p person. n. Facts o of a accident nt s support t the he Inju Injured C Cli limb mber’s ’s c cla laim t m tha hat L LCO faile led t to t take reasona nable le c care i in i n ins nstalli lling ng t the he b bolt lt a and nd t the heir c carele less c cond nduct c caused GG’s GG’s inju njuries. . Note: O : Othe her c cla laims ms c could ld b be b brought ht b by v y volu lunt nteer e eng ngaging ng i in r n repla laceme ment nt i ins nstalla llation n ef effor orts ts
LCO’S DEFENSES: Assumption o n of R Risk: k: § An exception to the general rule of liability. § Poli licy: y: Court does not want to “chill” participation the sport by imposing liability. § GG assumed the risk by engaging in the sport of rock climbing and more specifically the inherent risks of rock climbing. Thus, the LCO should not be held liable. § Defendants do not have a duty to eliminate the risk inherent to the sport but do have a duty not to increase those risks. § Did the SLCA/LCO increase the risks inherent to climbing by engaging in replacement efforts?
Volunteers conducting fixed anchor replacement • Are t the hey s y ski kille lled e eno nough t h to p perform t m the he w work? k? • How, a , as t the he L LCO, w , will y ll you f feel c l conf nfident nt t tha hat t the he i ins nstalle ller i is q quali lified? • SLCA ha has a adopted a a me ment ntorshi hip p program t m to a assure i ind ndividuals ls a are q quali lified
Paying for fixed anchor replacement • Is Issue: Do : Does p payi ying ng a an i n ind ndepend ndent nt c cont ntractor t to i ins nstall f ll fixed a anc ncho hors p poses mo more li liabili lity e y exposure t to t the he L LCO? • Answer: Maybe • Pros of Paying: • YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR: Individual worth paying more likely to do a better job installing—minimizing a future risk of failure • Cons of Paying: • Plaintiff’s lawyer may use payment for installation to support claims—installer/LCO should be held to a higher standard of care since payment was exchanged • Worker compensation laws come into play—must carry their own insurance • LCO must be assured that the independent contractor has his/her own insurance— could be subject to fines • Obtaining such insurance is likely cost prohibitive • Conc nclu lusion: May be less liability exposure by not paying for fixed anchor replacement à REAL BENEFIT=Less Administrative Headache
MITIGATING LIABILITY—WAIVERS FOR INSTALLERS • Is Is y your L LCO g getting ng f fixed a anc ncho hor r repla laceme ment nt i ins nstalle llers t to s sign w n waivers? • Fixed anchor replacement installers are just like other volunteers conducting trail work for the LCO—they need to sign a waiver
MITIGATING LIABILITY—BEST PRACTICES § Best Practices for the installation of fixed anchors § Purpose: : Set general replacement standards for replacing fixed anchors that will be generally adhered to by climbers replacing bolts § Installer can’t just be a robot—needs to account for site specific factors § Pr Pros: s: potentially avoids careless errors in the installation of fixed anchors § Insurance industry may grow more comfortable with insuring this risk by having such a document in place and adhered to by LCOs § Cons ns: creates a standard of care for installing fixed anchors—failure to follow “best practices” makes it easier to establish liability § Access Fund Fixed Anchor Best Management Practices Document § SLCA’s effort to put together such a policy
MITIGATING LIABILITY--INSURANCE SLCA ha has i investigated p procuring ng i ins nsuranc nce t to mi mini nimi mize i its r risk e k exposure f from m • fixed a anc ncho hor r repla laceme ment nt • 2012: Received preliminary quote=>$10K (cost prohibitive) • 2016: Received preliminary quote=~$7K (still cost prohibitive) • Initial Broker feedback=insuring the risk is unfamiliar in the marketplace • Broker Feedback/Suggestion: • Underwriting individual LCOs may be cost prohibitive; • Programmatic coverage with a larger entity (Access Fund) as primary insured and LCOs as additional insureds may be cost effective and have a large enough premium to entice underwriters • Next Steps: • Continue dialogue with underwriters so they can better understand the risk • Access Fund’s Best Management Practices document may help underwriters insure this risk if LCOs adhered to these practices
MITIGATING LIABILITY--INSURANCE • How ma many L y LCOs ha have a a g gene neral li l liabili lity p y poli licy? y? • GL Policy may cover an LCOs litigation costs for claims brought related to a fixed anchor replacement issue (failure or installation) BUT damages may not be covered • Need to work with your broker • If insurance was procured specific for replacement efforts, then legal defense and damages, if awarded, would be covered under the policy
CONCLUSIONS • ACHIEVING GOAL= MINIMIZE THE LCO’s RISK EXPOSURE, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, CAUSED BY ENGAGING IN FIXED ANCHOR REPLACEMENT • USE Access Fund’s Best Management Practices Document à Implementing Best Management Practices is the mo most c cost e effective way to mitigate risk exposure and should result in better w work p k product • What other LCO specific best management practices will you implement? • Mentoring? • Get Volunteers doing the work to sign waivers • Review existing insurance policies to determine whether defense coverage exists
Recommend
More recommend
