WestMetro wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:45 pm
I suppose Lee will freeze the thread
But this topic begs the question
If MinnHockey Association JGold surges , while mshsl varsity withers or folds ....
Presumably they are looking at the same scientific disease data ...
Therefore , unless you think one entity believeS data and the other doesn’t...
The only other remaining difference is the liability risk assessment
Since both JGold and HS play at generally the same municipal rinkS , the municipality Itself can’t view the rink disease liability risk much differently?
So it must be either the school board risk , the mshsl administrators Risk , or some type of waiver which associations can insist on that school boards can’t ?
A shame to see the whole apple cart upset by different liability impressions
Any forum lawyers out there Care to comment?
Not a lawyer but, it's not surprising that different oversight/governing bodies might interpret/weigh the pertinent medical info/liability risk differently. Or, more specifically, that the lawyers for one organization interpret the liability risk differently than a different organization's lawyers. Just look at what's happened in Power 5 Div. I football. All five of them with medical advisory boards made up of some of the most respected experts in the world regarding Covid. Yet, two conferences have decided there's too much risk -- although they haven't provided all of the specifics that drove their decision -- yet, the other three have decided to try and play.
At the high school level, almost every state registers their sports with the National Federation of High Schools and yet, different states have made different decisions about whether to play or not to play this fall. Now, some of those decisions have been either "helped" or, actually made by the governors of some of those states. Regardless, there are obviously different risk assessments being made by different statewide governing bodies.
Since USA Hockey has determined they will "sanction" a "normal" game play season at the national level, that provides initial liability cover for their various affiliates, Minnesota Hockey included. Personally, I find USA Hockey's decision interesting. Even though the BIG 10/Pac-12 decisions involve FAR greater financial effects, USA Hockey is a true "national" organization with programs in all 50 states. In which, there are very different levels of Covid infection/community spread that might drive the decisions to play a normal season by the local or regional affiliates.
The other risk that USA Hockey would take by not sanctioning a normal season, is that in most areas of the country, the sport is organized on a "private club based" model versus our statewide/community based model. So, if USA Hockey chose not to offer a season, there is a very good chance that a number of those clubs nationwide would choose to register with AAU or, buy private insurance for this season. Personally, even if USA Hockey chose not to sanction a normal season and a number of those clubs did choose to register with AAU or get private insurance, I doubt that USA Hockey would lose any of those organizations permanently if hockey was back to normal next year. USA Hockey is just too interconnected with the upper-level development leagues/opportunities, including the IIHF, NCAA, and NHL. Still, I suppose if you're sitting in Colorado Springs trying to decide which way to go, the majority of board members would prefer to avoid having to answer that question if at all possible.
Now, combine the organization's financial risk from the previous paragraph and add in the fact that USA Hockey is also/can be influenced by the larger sub-organizations that they sanction/support -- USNDP, USHL, NAHL, NA3 -- which makes it even easier to understand why the USA Hockey leadership would lean more to sanctioning a season versus not doing so. The USHL and NAHL are actual businesses that exist to make a profit first and develop players second. Meaning, I'm quite confident that both of those leagues put significant pressure on USA Hockey to "interpret" the possible "risk" in a way that at least gave those two leagues (and the USNDP) an opportunity to try and have a season. Although, since most localities won't allow for more than 50% attendance at a sporting event, I find it hard to believe any of those teams would come close to being in the black, even if they're able to play a full season.
As others here have noted previously, both the USHL and NAHL have been proclaiming fairly loudly for at least a month now that they had every intention of playing a "normal" season. Far earlier than USA Hockey announced it's decision nationally to sanction normal game play. Sure seems as though USA Hockey may have been put between a rock and a hard place regarding its' decision. Does that mean Minnesota Hockey couldn't decide on its' own to not sanction normal game play if their lawyers determined it was more of a risk than USA Hockey did? I think MH probably could decide that, although I'll obviously defer to Elliott on that as he's actually been in the room this summer for those discussions.
Regardless of what USA Hockey or Minnesota Hockey have decided, to me it is a bit surprising they seem to be deciding that the risk is less than what the BIG10 and Pac-12 have decided it is. Especially considering the "worst-case scenario" is the possibility of a player dying from Covid that was determined to have caught it as a result of playing in a USA/MH sanctioned activity. Or, even if it's a player developing myocarditis or some type of long-term lung issue. Before any of you get too wound up about those last two sentences, I completely acknowledge the very low chance for any player to actually die from a Covid-related issue. Although I don't believe we have a complete understanding of the risks regarding the possible long-term heart or lung issues yet. Which, is what the preliminary information regarding the BIG and Pac-12 decisions seem to be based on.
Back to liability. When USA Hockey released their initial "Return to the Rinks" guidelines in conjunction with the U.S. Figure Skating Association and, the U.S. Rink Association back in early June, at the very end of the document was the following disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER
"The following considerations are provided for general informational purposes only and are not intended
as, and should not be relied upon as, specific medical or legal advice. You are strongly encouraged to
consult with qualified medical personal/public health officials for medical considerations and to local,
state and federal orders and or laws for legal considerations. If you use any considerations provided for
herein, you do so at your own risk and you specifically release from any and all liability United States
Ice Rink Association, U.S. Figure Skating, USA Hockey, and their directors, officers, employees, volunteers,
and agents in connection with your use of the enclosed considerations."
Obviously, at that time USA Hockey was making it extremely clear that their standard membership insurance wasn't going to cover ANY Covid related legal challenges. Since then, USA Hockey has released more detailed "Return to Play" directives, along with providing a FAQ opportunity with their Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Michael Stuart of the Mayo Clinic regarding questions parents and administrators might have from the medical perspective. I also just spent a solid hour reviewing everything on the USA website that might address any possible udate/change regarding Covid related liability coverage concerns and yet, other than the disclaimer above from the initial "Return to the Rinks" document, I can't find a single statement in any of their policies, procedures, insurance parameters, or player safety info, that provides any specific guidance/clarity as to whether the standard USA Hockey insurance provides any coverage of any Covid-related legal challenges.
Actually, if you review the standard USA Hockey Insurance Handbook, on page 6 under "Exclusions From Coverage", it states the following: "Coverage excludes losses caused by, or resulting from the following: self-inflicted injuries; suicide; war;
illness or infections; travel in any aircraft (except as a fare paying passenger on a commercial aircraft
operated by a licensed, regulated carrier); being under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs or narcotics.
In addition, the member must meet a $1,000 out-of-pocket expense obligation, per accident, before
this coverage begins."
Note, I bolded and italicized "illness and infection" on my own. The point being, the normal USA Hockey insurance already indicates it wouldn't cover any Covid related legal challenges. This really makes me wonder about what truly is the potential liability to individual associations for potential Covid lawsuits?!? Has USA Hockey chosen to "sanction" a "normal" season knowing they weren't accepting ANY risk of Covid related lawsuits anyway? To continue providing even more perspective, I offer the following article from "The Aspen Institute -- Project Play", entitled; 'Wild West'; Youth Sports Providers Weigh Liability Risks.
This article is from May 8th so, some of the items discussed/presented may have changed since then but, I highly recommend all of you read it as it provides some interesting and stark commentary from those in the sports liability insurance universe that I find concerning. Here's the link:
https://www.aspenprojectplay.org/corona ... lity-risks
Here are a few of the more striking statements from the article:
"Like many youth sports providers these days, Steel Soccer executive director Craig McGinn is talking with insurance agents. Steel Soccer, a youth soccer training organization that works in more than 20 states, wants to understand how to protect itself legally should it reopen and gets sued for something related to the coronavirus pandemic.
Insurance agents “described it like trying to buy hurricane insurance during a hurricane,” McGinn said on a recent LeagueApps webinar. “Most insurance companies don’t want to touch this thing right now. The way it was best described to me is even when (pandemic insurance becomes available), it may be so expensive that a lot of clubs can’t afford it.”
"How travel, community and high school sports return to play depends in part on a legal question: What level of liability risk can an organizer afford to accept, especially since there’s essentially no insurance coverage now for communicable diseases?"
“Insurance carriers are so hesitant right now because they’re under siege from all of these COVID claims from every line of business,” said Lori Crispo, area president for RPS Bollinger Sports & Leisure, which is the insurance administrator for US Lacrosse. “I can’t get answers on what specifically I can tell clients they’re covered for. It would all depend on the allegation. It’s the wild, wild west.” Or as Lee Gaby, a risk insurance management executive for Albert Risk Management Consultants, put it: “What insurance? There is none.”
To the best of his knowledge, Gaby said insurance companies’ policies with school districts do not cover communicable diseases. RPS Bollinger’s school programs do not, at this time, have a communicable disease exclusion.
“That’s a big problem,” Gaby said. “All of the liability is on the school district. The insurance industry is not even going to entertain a claim arriving on COVID-19. If a child comes back to play and somehow gets sick and parents say, ‘It happened because you let my child play sports with another child,’ the insurance company is going to say, ‘Sorry, it’s not a covered risk.’ You’re handling the legal defense on your own.”
UCLA business law professor Steven Bank said he doubts insurance companies will ever want to cover COVID-19, given how widespread the potential exposure is of the virus and the payouts they’re trying to avoid now on existing policies. That’s why I think insurers have the power here. Cases are hard to win in court, but insurance companies don’t want to take that risk.”
Crispo advised that youth sports providers first check to see if their policy has a communicable disease exclusion. If that language exists, it’s clear your organization isn’t covered for COVID-19. If a youth sports organization or school district does get sued, establishing that a person contracted the virus at the sport events will be difficult, Bank said. Theoretically, the person could have become infected anywhere in the community over a two-week incubation period.
“There may be a lot of correlation, but it will be challenging to establish the sports event is the cause,” Bank said. “On the other side, if you get to a jury and you didn’t follow the customary precautions identified by your sanctioning body or whatever is considered the standard of care, then that’s going to look bad that you didn’t take the necessary steps.”
Expect to see youth sports providers increasingly asking parents to sign waivers that would theoretically protect the organizations against COVID-19 lawsuits. Waiver applicability varies by state laws. The waivers have not always held up in court, and even if parents sign away their child’s rights now, the child could still sue in the future at an older age.
“Waivers are a good idea because the insurance coverage right now is so wacky,” Crispo said. “The real intent for the waivers is to get rid of the nuisance claims – someone gets injured, wants to roll the dice and see if they can get some money, and they go to (a semi-educated lawyer) who says, ‘You have a waiver, forget it.’ The larger claims may not be covered by waivers.”
To close, the research I've done tonight has definitely motivated me to dig a little deeper in regards to this topic. Still, for those of us wondering what the various state governing bodies might be considering as they weigh the decision to return to normal game play or not, I think what's stated in the article adds more perspective to the difficulty these boards face in trying to make the best decision possible and, why there's probably a tendency to wait until the last possible moment to actually make the decision in order to allow for the absolute latest and best information to be available. I'm interested to hear what the rest of the group's reaction is to what I've provided.