Nate, I believe you are, for the most part, entirely correct, in my non-legal opinion. However, there are still clubs out here in RF land that are not Incorporated (for what-ever reason or act of ignorance) under State law, and there I belive the indiviual members can be held responsible/liable (at tleast those that may be participating in a given activity). This may vary from State to State. If my belief if incorrect then I apologize for any confusion I may have caused to the QSO. -- Doug N3DAB/WPRX486/WPJL709
---- Nate Duehr <n...@natetech.com> wrote: ============= Doubtful. They have no authority (or responsibility) for what the Corporate entity does, really. Nor do they make decisions for the Corporation. The law recognizes the registered officers of an Incorporation as those responsible for its actions. In most cases. The analogy would be if the membership voted (even in a "democratic" organization) to have the club do something illegal, it would still be the club officers who would enact (or not enact) those wishes, and be liable for them under the law. Saying, "the members made me do it" wouldn't be a defense. You choose to follow the member's wishes, or in the worst-case scenario, you are forced to resign and say you're unable to fulfil them. Corporations, Partnerships, and so-called "Limited Liability" Corporations are all handled a little differently, both in general, and also in different jurisdictions. For example, in aircraft partnerships, it's common to build those as an LLC and one should never say they "own an airplane". You say, "I own a portion of the incorporation that owns the airplane", if you're truly doing it right. If someone hears you say you own the plane with Mr. X, and X had a bad day and put the airplane down through negligence through a roof into someone's living room, or worse, he loses it and decided to start dropping grand pianos on unsuspecting motorists from the airplane you jointly "own", and a lawyer can prove you treated it more as a "Partnership" than an LLC, his temporary lack of good judgement could mean your assets are seized until a judge decides your true relationship with Mr. X. Far easier to just say "Mr. X crashed the corporation's aircraft" and hire your own lawyer to make sure you get your money back from the insurance company during the ensuing legal battle between the Corporation and Mr. X for the replacement costs of the aircraft. Most ham club's biggest liability risk (to me anyway) of real losses comes on tower climbing day. I'm a pain in the ass about hard hats at our work parties and I bring extra, figuring that even retaining an average lawyer fir one hour would cost me more than buying everyone at the site a cheap Home Depot hard hat. As just one example... -- Nate Duehr Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2009, at 19:40, "Gary Schafer" <gascha...@comcast.net> wrote: > Hi Nate, > > > > Can’t members of the club be held liable as well as officers? > > > > 73 > > Gary K4FMX > > > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > ] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:31 PM > To: Repeater Builder List > Cc: <repeater-builder@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Site Insurance Vendors > > > > Yeah I know. I just didn't want to depress people further. > > > > If you have "considerable assets", of any kind -- being a club > leader is inherently a very risky position to put yourself in, > financially -- now that corporate rules regarding liability of > organizations have been eviscerated. > > > > Thank Enron and Qwest leadership for the motivation to change the > law the next time you see them. > > > > ARRL says little about this. They have a whole organization > dedicated to clubs that never says a word in any publication about > how to properly set up Amateur organizations from a liability > standpoint. > > > > At least my AOPA membership means they lobby for product liability > changes in aviation. If ARRL ever starts fighting for liability > limits for volunteer organizations in The Beltway instead of the > never-ending BPL fight, I'll be pretty impressed. > > > > -- > > Nate Duehr > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 26, 2009, at 17:49, Butch Kanvick <hot...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Usually when some one signs a waiver letter, it is not worth the >> ink that it is written with. >> You cannot assign your rights away before something happens, it >> usually means you have just admitted liability with them signing >> the letter. >> It might slow down litigation by about 5 minutes, but does not mean >> anything. It is feel good measure, but good luck when it is used >> against you. >> >> Butch, KE7FEL/r >> >> >> >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> From: n...@natetech.com >> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:12:39 -0700 >> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Site Insurance Vendors >> >> >> Check to see if they can later subrogate in cases of negligence or >> gross >> negligence in your state. In California, I think it's gross >> negligence, but >> I'd have to check. >> >> Sure they have to defend you, but if they lose... then they can >> usually turn >> around and sue you. >> >> And... this becomes a conflict of interest, because in States where >> they can >> subrogate only in cases of GROSS negligence (you have to get the >> difference >> between negligence and gross negligence here...), they're motivated >> to >> provide you with a really shoddy defense. >> >> Basically the old adage comes true again -- any lawyer you're not >> paying out >> of your pocket, isn't looking out for your best interests, they're >> looking >> to the best interests of their CLIENT. In this case, the insurance >> company. >> >> Let's use a real-world example: Someone falls off a tower and is >> hurt. >> It'd be REALLY easy for any lawyer involved to prove GROSS >> negligence today >> if everyone climbing didn' t have FORMAL OSHA-Approved climbing >> training. >> >> Send one guy up the tower who VOLUNTEERS to do so without modern >> training, >> and he falls, and you don't have a signed waiver from him -- if >> you're an >> officer of the organization, be prepared to lose your house to his >> widow. >> >> This is the kind of stuff that keeps club Presidents and officers >> awake at >> night when it's time to replace antennas. >> >> Nate >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Gomberg >> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:06 PM >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Site Insurance Vendors >> >> At 13:34 1/26/2009, Nate Duehr wrote: >> >Also consider that most of your Bo ard and Officers will be >> bankrupt from >> >paying for the lawyers to defend themselves (let alone the >> organization) >> >long before the insurance kicks in... Nate >> >> You picked a bad state, Nate. In California, an insurance company >> has a duty to defend, even if they think the suit is baseless or not >> covered by your policy (they must defend to ensure that they get that >> ruling). And they pay for the defense. >> >> FWIW, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, this is NOT legal >> advice. >> >> > >> >> -- >> Dave Gomberg, San Francisco NE5EE gomberg1 at wcf dot com >> All addresses, phones, etc. at http://www.wcf.com/ham/info.html >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> > > >
