Insurance depends on new screening policy

Congregations who fail to implement the church's proposed volunteer screening and training policy may find themselves without insurance to cover abuse claims. The warning comes from Michael Petersen of Marsh Canada Insurance. Petersen said the coverage "is not a warranty" against possible slip-ups or oversights in abuse protocols. He said the possibility exists for a congregation to make a claim and, if found not to be in full compliance with the guidelines, refused compensation.
Leading with Care: A Policy for Ensuring a Climate of Safety in the Presbyterian Church in Canada was presented as a draft to the General Assembly in 2002. It received revisions, returned in 2004 for further comment, and is scheduled to make it back to the floor this June. If passed, congregations will be expected to follow its requests.
The policy insists that congregations screen volunteers and employees using interviews, references and police records checks. It calls for clearly stated definitions of all forms of abuse and a code of conduct for employees and volunteers. Precautionary measures such as windows in classrooms, keeping doors open during counselling sessions, and avoiding one-on-one time between a child and adult must be implemented.
Some congregations have argued that complying with the stipulations will be too expensive to implement and enforce. "Quite a few congregations have told us, 'This is great. What has taken you so long in developing this?'" said Dorothy Henderson, associate secretary for Youth and Child Ministries. "Others fear what it will do to their church."
Insurance coverage is dependent on the policy being followed to the letter. There are concerns that some congregations might not be able to administer every detail. "It's a positive move for the church and it's good for congregations," said Rev. Peter Coutts, minister at St. Andrew's, Calgary. "But my concern is that we're boxing ourselves in with a policy that we're obliged to follow that could leave us vulnerable to insurance companies. If there isn't full compliance and if something goes wrong, will we be able to utilize the coverage given through our insurance program?"
In 2002, the national church received a letter from Marsh (one of only a handful of brokers that insures churches and the principal insurer of the Presbyterian Church with 289 congregations), stating that Zurich Insurance Company, the underwriter for Marsh, requested all congregations come in line with protection policies if they wanted their insurance renewed.
Zurich determined the church had sufficient policies to deal with abuse once it happened; however, it felt the church was lacking in preventative measures such as volunteer screening, training and implementation, and monitoring performance. In return for compliance, coverage will increase to $1 million (and possibly even two) per congregation, compared to the $100,000 previously available.
The request from Zurich is not unique. "The insurance industry has been backing away from abuse coverage for a number of years," said Petersen. He noted several cases in the United States where settlements of US $60 and $100 million were doled out by insurance companies over abuse cases. "Insurance companies are reluctant to become part of that process."
Petersen said the church "has gone above and beyond what Zurich asked for." It's up to presbyteries to determine if congregations have followed the new protocol, advise Marsh of the change, and ensure a monitoring process is established. "We're trying to avoid a time limit [on when congregations have to adopt the policy]," said Petersen. "Still, congregations have been aware of this for a couple of years and should have been preparing. Once the policy is approved, they should put it in place as soon as possible."
Henderson believes the policy will make the church's ministry better. "What parent wants their child in Boy Scouts when the leader hasn't been screened?" she asked. "The church has always overlooked that, but we shouldn't, because we're just as capable of having unsafe conditions as any other organization."