Equipment Ownership

[HRM Sanguinius]

There is a proclamation in the LI that states the ECS can not own equipment (arms and armor). My guess is that this is because of the fear that if the equipment was not in good condition, and broke and injured someone, the ECS would be liable.

If this is the thought process, then what happens if an individual loans out a sword or a piece of armor, and it fails, is the individual that loaned the piece liable? If so, that seems like it would be a larger concern to this group. If it's not the case, then why would the group as a whole be liable for loaning a piece that malfunctioned, but not an individual?

Just need some clarification.

[Paul de Marseilles]

Your Excellency,

The thought was likely that group equipment was a source of potential liability and division.
Equipment would cost $ and therefore decisions as to how group funds would be spent.
Equipment could cause problems among members when there are disagreements as to who could use it.
Equipment would generally require periodic maintenance and therefore problems as to who was to maintain it.
Periodic maintenance would also cost $ and therefore decisions as to how group funds were to be spent.
Equipment would generally require separate insurance (which would also cost additional $).
Think of a car.
If the car isn't maintained and someone drives it and injuries others, there could be consequences.
If the car is maintained and someone drives it and injuries others, there could be consequences.
Either way, the equipment is a source of potential liability.
I hope that helps.

[Mynwyn]

But doesn't the waiver protect us from all liability? If that's the case, then it would be in our interest for the ECS to own all loaner equipment as the ECS would be protected but an individual would not.

Other issues could be taken care of in a variety of ways.

Myn

[HRM Sanguinius]

That would be my guess, that the waiver would cover the group, whether the piece of equipment that caused the injury was owned by the group or a member of the group.

As for monitary concerns, many a time equipment is donated or collected.

I bring this up because of some issues with loaner equipment. As it stands now, if there is to be any loaner equipement, it must be owned by an individual. Which means that if a great deal comes along (like 5 masks for 50 bucks) which would be great for a territory to get new memeber participating, an individual has to spring for it.

We do have a process of checking whether equipment is in good working condition before any fighting takes place, so why can't we apply this process to equipment owned by the group? The 'liabilty' argument doesn't seem to hold, and the monitary one seems like a drop in the bucket for the amount of good it can bring.

Hopefully we can start discussing this here and now, so we can make some changes when that time comes back around.

[Paul de Marseilles]

Hmmm. . . . . very interesting.
Since this does not appear to be a hypothetical question . . .
And it appears that there have been "real world" actions and "real world" consequences . . .
May I suggest that this "discussion" be brought to the attention of all of the Board of Directors with a complete disclosure of all relevant facts?

[HRM Sanguinius]

No no, let me rephrase. There have been times where cheap equipment (ebay auctions, members getting rid of stuff, etc) have been available, and territories with funds could have purchase these pieces for the benifit of their territory, but had to pass it up because individuals weren't willing to take possession of various items, and the territory couldn't purchase it because the L.I. forbids it.

What I'm proposing is that this limitation of the L.I. be lifted, because the reasons for it seem to have unsubstantiated consequences.

[Valdis]

My understanding is that the insurance company said we can't own armor or weaponry....

If the insurance co. says no ownership of weapons or armor
And We want to have insurance
Then we have no ownership of weapons or armor

I agree that it sucks when a deal like the one ES Robert mentioned above comes up, but the insurance is part of what lets us do what we do...

[HRM Sanguinius]

I agree if our insurance company says we can't then we can't... but I've heard people reference what our insurance allows us to do and not to do from varying people with varying opinions...

I, for one, would like to see what we are actually allowed to do and not to do in writing. I've heard from Max's mouth to my ears at Ewhaz's knighting that our insurance company covers whatever we want to do as long as it is substantiated by our mission statement. I've also heard from other individuals things that they said we were not covered for, which in fact we were.

Also, many times people use the "insurance" argument to make any discussions on furthering this group moot... and no one can argue against it because no one really knows what we're covered for.

Any way we can see what we're actually covered for?

[Valdis]

Any way we can see what we're actually covered for?

LS Paul de Marseilles has been in closest contact with the insurance company, I confirmed with him that the insurance does not cover weapon/armor ownership.

But I certainly see your point...

LS Paul, can we get an itemization of what the insurance company prohibits?

[lassidor]

just an fyi from L.I. 12.0


II. It is the Policy of the Empire of Chivalry and Steel, Inc. that the E.C.S. shall not own armor, weapons, tools or
other dangerous instruments. Materials, prizes or group purchases are not prohibited. Approved by the
Imperial Estates 9/24/94 [Revoked, 10/14/200, pending Insurance Approval.]