Regardless, the insurance cover mentioned in the article is only paying for approaximately a third of the liability. The insurance also only appears to cover cases that take place after the insurance is in place. $6000 for $1m of cover is a heck of a premium to protect against $100m, $200m of liabilty. What would the cost of cover be to cover an organisation for an uknown historic liability?What about the cost of defending the case? Is that covered? If you are looking at reducing the cost of the insurance moving forward then the underwriters will want a clear and transparent child protection policy that ensures that ministers with access to children have gone through the required background checks. I would also expect some reluctance to payout unless WTS liability is 100% proven and the WTS is at pains to shift the blame onto rogue members.
I accept the WTS can get insurance but it still does not mean that dontated funds are protected.