Nonprofits Insurance Alliance

members and growing

Contractual Liability: How Nonprofits Can Protect Themselves and Their Communities

In any negotiated agreement, each party should be liable for the things over which they have control.

Before you sign a contract, do you review it with your insurance broker?

Decision-makers at nonprofit organizations can better work with insurance brokers, identify potential problems with contracts, and navigate liability when signing a contract with local municipalities. The COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for nonprofit organizations around contractual liability. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to protect your organization and the communities you serve.

We always recommend that our members have someone with legal expertise review any contract before signing it. In this article, I’ll specifically cover issues of liability and indemnification in contracts.

How contract liability between nonprofits and municipalities has changed during COVID-19

Depending on how your nonprofit carries out its programs, a contract with your local municipality could cover anything from the work your nonprofit is doing for the community (for example, if you run childcare services or a food bank) to simply public space for a fundraising event (for example, a walk for the cure in a local park).

Even before COVID-19 became a public health concern, contract wording often pushed all liability onto the nonprofit, and in many cases, inappropriately so. That trend has continued. Immediately after COVID-19 emergency orders went into effect, we began to see wording being added to various contracts that shifted liability for any COVID-19 claims from the municipalities to the nonprofits. And for nonprofits that expanded their programming to assist their municipalities in COVID-19 relief efforts, we saw the addition of even broader language shifting liability onto those organizations.

Often, municipalities want the help from nonprofits to address issues in the community, but local government agencies try to pass off as much of the liability as they can to nonprofit partners as a way to control costs. So it’s important for decision-makers at nonprofits to understand what risks they are taking when partnering with municipalities, and to only agree to assume liability for things the nonprofit has control over.

Indemnification clauses

One of the main ways municipalities transfer liability is through the indemnification clause in the contract. This clause determines how the liability flows in case of a claim against the nonprofit or against the municipality.

An indemnity agreement is a risk transfer mechanism (a contract) in which one party (the indemnitor) transfers risk from (indemnifies) another party (the indemnitee).

What exactly does that mean in layman’s terms? The indemnification agreement attempts to ensure that liability for a claim is assigned to the party responsible for causing that claim, either through their direct action or through their negligence. Again, each party should be liable for the things over which they have control.

You want to make sure your nonprofit is covered in cases where there’s a claim from an error or omission on your part. Accidents happen and things are sometimes missed, which is why you buy insurance. However, you need to make sure you’re not being forced to cover someone else’s liability because of contract language that shifts others’ liability onto your nonprofit.

Here’s an example of a nonprofit project and a typical indemnification clause:

The city of Mos Eisley has a contract with the nonprofit Solo Foundation to set-up and manage COVID testing centers. Solo doesn’t do any of the testing nor do they handle any medical procedures or equipment. They simply setup the tents, direct traffic and check people in as they arrive. The city requires all of its contractors to include the following indemnification agreement in the Service Contract:

Consultant agrees to add the city of Mos Eisley as an Additional Insured and to hold harmless and indemnify the city of Mos Eisley, its officers, agents and employees for all claims, legal expenses or judgements which are caused by any negligence, liable act or omission of the consultant or those acting in the consultant’s behalf in the performance of your ongoing operations with respect to this contract.

A good contract would have mutual indemnification wording, where each party agrees to defend and possibly indemnify the other party for claims caused by their respective actions. Even considering the exposure to COVID claims, the above indemnification clause is fair. It references claims caused by the negligence of the nonprofit. This is not always the case in light of new liabilities like COVID-19.

By the end of 2020, both the reinsurance market and primary insurers started excluding or limiting coverage liability third party claims relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of a nonprofit, the vast majority of these third-party claims would be assertions that an individual contracted the virus because the nonprofit was negligent in taking precautions to mitigate the spread of the virus. This kind of claim would be difficult to prove, but it may leave your organization vulnerable to class action lawsuits, so it is important to work with your insurance broker to understand what kinds of expenses your nonprofit may be liable for under new insurance clauses.

Additional insured

An “additional insured” (AI) is a person or organization that enjoys the benefits of being insured under an insurance policy, in addition to whomever originally purchased the insurance policy (the named insured).

Here’s a real-life example:

A nonprofit hires a psychologist as a consultant to council its clients on-site once a week, in a group session. The psychologist requires, by contract, that the nonprofit add her as an additional insured on the nonprofit’s insurance policy. On the way to a meeting, one of the clients slips on a wet floor on the nonprofit’s premises and hurts their back. The client then sues the nonprofit and the psychologist as a result of the incident. As an additional insured, the psychologist would be defended by the nonprofit’s insurance policy.

Why would anyone want to be added as an additional insured? Because it helps to ensure that the party that’s liable for the loss holds the financial responsibility for a claim. As we’ve discussed, people should only agree to be responsible for the things over which they have control. In the case of our example above, the nonprofit should have been in control of keeping a safe environment by drying the floors. The additional insured (the psychologist) is being covered only for claims caused by the actions of the named insured (the nonprofit) to the policy.

An entity or person should only be added as an AI when there is some legal relationship between the nonprofit and that entity. In other words, if your organization is not being required by written agreement to add someone as an additional insured, you shouldn’t add them.

In some cases, the nonprofit will want to be added as an additional insured on another’s insurance policy. As an example, if the nonprofit has hired a contractor to do construction at the nonprofits location, it is a good idea to have that contractor, by way of a written agreement, add the nonprofit as an additional insured to the contractor’s insurance policy.

Arising out of vs. caused by

What makes an indemnification clause fair? There are a couple phrases the nonprofit should look for and try to avoid with respect to the indemnification clause. These phrases are “arising out of” and “sole negligence.” Here is the indemnification clause from our earlier example:

Consultant agrees to add the city of Mos Eisley as an Additional Insured and to hold harmless and indemnify the city of Mos Eisley, its officers, agents and employees for all claims, legal expenses or judgements which is caused by any negligence, liable act or omission of the consultant or those acting in the consultant’s behalf in the performance of your ongoing operations with respect to this contract.

Now, let’s change a few words:

Consultant agrees to add the city of Mos Eisley as an Additional Insured and to hold harmless and indemnify the city of Mos Eisley, its officers, agents and employees for all claims, legal expenses or judgements arising out of the performance of your ongoing operations with respect to this contract.

The first version states specifically that the claim must be caused by the nonprofit’s negligence. This is preferable, as the nonprofit should not accept liability for things outside their control. The second version is much broader in scope. It could be argued, inappropriately so, that any claim or loss that happens arises out of the nonprofit’s operations.

Here is a real-life claims scenario to illustrate that point (note that the names have been changed to protect anonymity of the organization):

Good Heart Housing leases apartments and houses to ensure the availability of low cost housing for their clients. They lease an apartment from Richard. Richard requires Good Heart to add him as an additional insured. In one of the apartments that Good Heart is using to house a family, there is a fire. The fire is caused by faulty wiring that Richard knew about but didn’t fix or tell Good Heart about.

It is clear that it was not the family’s or the nonprofit’s fault that the fire started. Should the nonprofit’s insurance (via the indemnification clause with “arising out of” wording) reimburse Richard for the loss?

Under the “arising out of” scenario, Richard could argue that this fire loss should be covered under the additional insured language because the fire was “arising out of” the nonprofit’s actions (renting the house). Under the “caused by” wording, it is clear that the fire was not caused by the actions of our insured (or the family). It was not the fault of either party that the fire started.

Sole negligence

Now let’s discuss the concept of “sole negligence.” Here is another example of a poor indemnification clause:

The Nonprofit agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless The City, its agents, employees and officers, from any and all liability cost or expense, including but not limited to attorneys fees arising out of or relating to the performance of the work regardless of whether caused in part by the acts or omissions of the Nonprofit. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as obligating Nonprofit to idemnify The City against its sole negligence or willful misconduct.

Essentially, this clause means that if a claim is the result of the City being anything but 100% at fault, the nonprofit will be held responsible. In other words, let’s say the City is 99% responsible for a claim or The City can point to the sole negligence clause and try to push 100% of the liability onto the nonprofit. To make matters worse, it is very rare that a judge (or jury) would find either party 100% liable for any claim or loss. That is why some municipalities insist on this wording.

Nonprofits should push for better wording in contracts stating that indemnification for a claim will be allocated proportionally by the contribution of either party to that claim.

Top 3 ways to protect your nonprofit from additional liability

While COVID-19 presents a new risk for nonprofits in terms of liability, there are still fundamental best practices that can help protect your organization from taking on responsibility for events beyond your control. Here are three things you should look for in any indemnification clause for a contract you are going to sign:

  1. Make sure the wording refers to claims caused by your actions and not “arising out of” anything. The “arising out of” wording is too broad and could lead to liability being assigned to you that is out of your control. Don’t agree to take on liability for things outside your control.
  2. If you are agreeing to indemnify another party via a written agreement, ask that that party agree to also indemnify you (mutual indemnification). That way everyone is liable for the things over which they have control.
  3. You should ask that any “sole negligence” wording be removed. This type of wording will almost always lead to the indemnitor being responsible for all losses. Instead nonprofits should ask that indemnification for a claim will be allocated proportionally by the contribution of either party to that claim.

Before you sign any contract, it is always a good idea to have your broker review it to ensure your organization will be compliant with the indemnification and insurance clauses.

Managing Teleworking Employees

In 2017, in the middle of a live interview with BBC News, Professor Robert Kelly’s daughter marched stridently into the background, becoming an instant media sensation. Just four years later, the intersection of work life and home life is accepted as the “new normal,” and the sight of a child wandering through the background of a live meeting barely raises an eyebrow. Most nonprofit employers understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our way of working—perhaps permanently—but the adaptation of policies and practices haven’t always kept up.

In the early days of the pandemic, nonprofit employers scrambled to implement telecommuting strategies. The crisis didn’t leave much time for considering the long-term implications of a “virtual workplace.” Now that over 70 million Americans have been vaccinated for COVID-19, more nonprofits are considering whether to require employees to return to the office, or to permit them to continue telecommuting. Many nonprofit managers are surprised to find that differing expectations about whether working from home is a right or a privilege are creating conflict. At worst, employers may face an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.

Home as the New Workplace

Managing boundaries has been a particularly difficult area for employees to navigate when they suddenly became telecommuters. Last year when the pandemic first hit the U.S., stay-at-home orders were implemented across the country. As schools and childcare centers closed, employees took on additional roles at home that often overlapped with their work time. Gone was the traditional office environment that provided a physical barrier between employees’ professional and personal lives. For many employees, home and work have been taking place in the same space for a year or more. The challenge of balancing work and personal obligations is front and center.

Unfortunately, the majority of managers have never received any formal training in how to manage a remote workforce, much less a workforce dealing with competing demands on employees’ time. Managers themselves are experiencing burnout in having to maintain an inexhaustible supply of encouragement and positivity in the face of employees who are being asked to juggle multiple responsibilities for home and work.

Now is the time for nonprofits to begin implementing more robust policies and schedules for employees who continue to work from home. Employees may be reluctant to return to the office, or to compromise on a previously flexible schedule. Even after they have been trying to “do the right thing” for their employees, nonprofits are sometimes surprised to find they are not on the same page with their employees about the long-term strategy.

Disability Implications

Another challenge employers are facing is increased requests by employees to work at home for medical reasons. Many employees are concerned about returning to the office, especially if they have a condition that would make them particularly susceptible to COVID-19. In some situations, telecommuting can be a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability. But navigating that path can be tricky, and with disability discrimination cases climbing every year. Many nonprofits don’t realize that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, they are responsible for identifying situations in which an employee may need an accommodation and offering to engage in the interactive process. Employers can unintentionally create liability merely by saying “no” to requests like telecommuting without engaging in the legally required steps to determine whether such an accommodation is appropriate and necessary.

Organizational Culture

Nonprofit managers and their reports often bemoan the loss of the benefits of in-person discussions. Many studies show employees working remotely are actually more productive than they are in the office. But that often depends on the nature of the work. Research has shown that the more complex the interactions required as part of a particular job, the less likely that job can be fulfilled on a 100% remote basis. The casual knowledge transfer and social bonds that develop through in-person interactions are difficult to replace. Intentionally developing informal collaboration strategies—not just cheesy icebreakers—leads to increased engagement and employee retention.

Workplace Policies in the Virtual Workplace

Nonprofits remain responsible for ensuring that wage and hour laws are followed, even when employees are working remotely. Given the blurring of lines between work and personal time, how can nonprofits ensure that hourly employees accurately report their hours, including overtime? That situation can be further complicated when an employee already has performance problems. Managing employee performance in a remote environment brings a particular set of challenges that require careful consideration and management.

As difficult as it has been to suddenly launch a remote work strategy, many nonprofits have discovered the advantages of a remote workforce. Telecommuting has allowed nonprofit employers to hire from a much more widespread talent pool and reduce the overhead of maintaining physical workspace for all its employees. Fewer cars on the road helps reduce pollution. Even as the pandemic appears to wane, it’s clear that telecommuting in some form is here to stay. Nonprofits will benefit from an intentional implementation of a risk-conscious strategy for handling remote work.

Learn about risk management topics by registering for our webinars — free to all members of Nonprofits Insurance Alliance (NIA) and $45 for the general public.

Expanding the California Family Rights Act Effective January 2021

As 2020 winds down, employers large and small will have to grapple with some significant changes to the state’s California Family Rights Act (CFRA). The September 17th signing of SB 1383 is a massive shift for California employers, since the CFRA has historically provided job protected leave for employers with 50 or more employees.

Effective January 1, 2021, California employers with five (5) or more employees will be required to extend up to 12 workweeks of family care and medical leave to eligible employees under an expanded CFRA. This leave also replaces California’s New Parent Leave Act, which previously extended up to 12 weeks of baby bonding leave for employers with 20-49 employees.

In the new year, an employee who has worked for a covered employer for at least 12 months and has worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months preceding the leave qualifies for a job protected leave under CFRA for the following reasons:

(A) Leave for reason of the birth of a child of the employee or the placement of a child with an employee in connection with the adoption or foster care of the child by the employee

(B) Leave to care for a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner who has a serious health condition

(C) Leave because of an employee’s own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee, except for leave taken for disability on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions

(D) Leave because of a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of an employee’s spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces of the United States, as specified in Section 3302.2 of the Unemployment Insurance Code

Smaller employers should be aware that Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) runs consecutive to CFRA, which means an employer must still provide up to 12 additional workweeks of leave following the exhaustion of PDL. Employers with 50 or more employees who are covered under the federal Family Medical Rights Act (FMLA) should also pay close attention to leaves to provide care for family members. Because the FMLA has a narrower definition of “family member,” any leave that qualifies under CFRA may not trigger FMLA, creating the potential for an employee to take up to 24 weeks of leave in a 12-month period.

The following are notable changes in the new law:

  • The previous requirement that employees work within 75 miles of the worksite is eliminated.
  • The definition of “family members” currently includes a minor child (unless the child is an adult and dependent child), a spouse, or a parent and expands to include siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, domestic partners, and all children of a domestic partner.
  • The law as modified eliminates a combined 12 weeks for two employees working for the same employer to allow each individual 12 weeks each for leave when leave is for the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child.
  • Employers may no longer refuse reinstatement to top 10% wage earners formerly called “key employees.”

To prepare for this new leave requirement, employers should update their employee handbooks and ensure required labor postings are updated to reflect the change. In addition, employers should ensure policies and procedures are in place for accurate tracking of leave and responding to requests for leave. Employers may also wish to consider hiring more employees to fill in for absences and cross-train existing staff.

The text of SB-1383 can be viewed here.

NIA Employment Risk Manager Ellen Aldridge will present a webinar on these expansions of the California Family Rights Act on December 8, 2020. The webinar is free for NIA members and $45 for the general public.

Managing the Risks of Workplace Romances – A Guide to Appropriate Policies

It is no secret that love and romance can blossom just about anywhere, including in the workplace. A recent Vault.com survey reported by The Fiscal Times, examined employers in a variety of industries and professions and found that a significant number of employees reported they have had, or are having, consensual romantic relationships with other employees.

These relationships run the gamut from the “random office hookup” to ongoing casual relationships, long-term relationships, and/or marriage. While it may already be obvious from a human resources standpoint, it’s inevitable that relationships like this will at some point impact the workplace.  It is, therefore, necessary to take action to ensure inter-office relationships are carefully monitored and managed, especially if the work relationship outlives the romantic one.

The Risks

A number of different and legitimate concerns flow from the existence of workplace romances, even when they’re fully consensual and in no way implicate sexual harassment, which requires different handling.  These concerns include:

  • The development of perceptions of unfair treatment and favoritism if a supervisory relationship exists;
  • Personal discomfort that other employees may have over public displays of affection;
  • The potential that if the relationship deteriorates, claims of sexual harassment will later develop;
  • Allegations of conflicts of interest, impaired business judgement, and confidentiality breaches on the part of a supervisor involved in such a relationship.

Some argue that all such relationships should be prohibited. However, if such a policy is implemented, claims of invasion of privacy or improperly interfering with the off duty conduct of the employees could result.   It is perhaps more prudent given the likelihood that these relationships do, or will, exist in your nonprofit, to create policies to discourage, yet monitor and control the effects of the relationships that do exist.

The Policies

The best place to start is with a comprehensive conflict of interest policy, which should be designed to deal with the potential negative effects of workplace relationships, particularly if it involves a supervisory relationship. Such a policy should state several important points, including:

  • Consensual romantic or sexual relationships between a supervisor/manager and an employee may at some point lead to unhappy complications and significant difficulties for all concerned, and therefore may be contrary to the best interests of the employer;
  • The employer discourages such relationships. However, if these relationships do exist, the privacy rights of the employees will be respected outside of the workplace and only conduct in the workplace will be monitored and subject to compliance with applicable policies;
  • If a romantic or sexual relationship between a supervisor and an employee should develop, it shall be the responsibility and obligation of the supervisor to promptly disclose the existence of the relationship to management;
  • Upon being informed or learning of the existence of such a relationship, management reserves the right to take all steps necessary to eliminate the conflict of interest that it, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate;
  • The supervisor must agree to withdraw from participation in any activities or decisions (including, but not limited to, hiring, evaluations, promotions, compensation, work assignments and discipline) that may reward or disadvantage any employee with whom the supervisor/manager has or has had such a relationship;
  • Displays of physical or verbal affection in the workplace are prohibited.

In addition to prohibiting displays of physical affection, employees involved in a workplace romance should be reminded to avoid communicating to other employees explicitly and/or implicitly that their relationship works to either party’s advantage. In fact, the California Supreme Court has ruled that extensive sexual or romantic favoritism, if pervasively displayed in the workplace, can be the basis of a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim (See Miller v. California Department of Corrections).

Concern that the involved employees’ relationship can make other employees uncomfortable can also be managed by the implementation of a policy that mandates that all employees act in a way that is, at all times, professional.  Many nonprofits already have these policies in place, but they can and should be revised to include that physical or verbal displays of affection are considered to be unprofessional and in violation of the policy.

Another, and perhaps the most effective way to manage the risks of these relationships is to have the employees enter into a written acknowledgement of the relationship, and committing to a number of responsibilities to avoid the risks and concerns associated with the relationship. This so-called “love agreement” should, among other things, contain acknowledgement of the sexual harassment policy and an agreement to report any change in the relationship or any non-consensual behavior that may violate the sexual harassment policy.

When Things Go Wrong

To the same extent it should be expected that consensual romantic relationships will develop in the workplace, it is to be expected those relationships will sometimes come to an end – with less-than desirable results.  When this happens, the risk that a complaint of sexual harassment will follow increases. If one does arise, these complaints should be handled like any other complaint made by an employee, which would include assuring the complainant that they will be protected from any retaliation.

At that point, the policies and agreements that have been implemented to avoid the risks will be critical to the defense of any claim that arises from the end of the relationship.

Managing Volunteers

Did you know that many 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations have no paid employees? Volunteers provide a critical link between nonprofits and their communities by bringing needed skills, connections, insights and resources to the organization. In some cases, they also serve as valuable public advocates and ambassadors for the nonprofit. Some organizations only have a few volunteers, while others manage hundreds of volunteers – but the fact remains that volunteers are critical to the relationship between nonprofits and their communities.

It’s important that your volunteers know what they can expect in the way of guidance and supervision, as a lack of clear directions and/or difficulty in contacting a supervisor can cause frustration and lead to mistakes. While there are many ways in which to manage a volunteer workforce, consider checking your strategies against the list below to assure your nonprofit is following the best safety practices possible:

      1. Commit to providing explicit instructions for all volunteers, as they cannot meet expectations that are unclear.
        • Similar to a job description, volunteer position descriptions typically include a list of expected duties and responsibilities.
        • It is a good practice to provide a volunteer handbook, set of policies, and/or a procedures manual. This establishes expectations and provides critical information about the organization. Clear policies and procedures can also minimize liability.
      2. Let volunteers know what they can and cannot (or should not) do. As an example, many programs specifically prohibit volunteers from offering rides to clients, or taking clients home for meals or social activities. Avoid unintended liability by providing explicit direction. Don’t assume that your interpretation of “common sense” will prevail.
      3. All volunteers should sign a volunteer waiver. If your organization allows minors to volunteer, their waiver must be signed by a parent/guardian.
      4. Any volunteers that pose a safety concern or pose a threat to your nonprofit’s clients or staff should not be permitted to continue participating as a volunteer.
      5. Volunteers should be subject to discipline leading up to and including termination of their volunteer service. Executive Directors should not be expected to welcome volunteers just because they happen to be a friend of a board member or a donor. They have to have a role with expectations agreed to in advance.
      6. Volunteer injuries need your immediate attention. If a volunteer is injured when providing volunteer service, it is important to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation. Your action plan should include:
        • Demonstrating compassion and concern for the volunteer’s well-being; determining the cause of injury;
        • Notifying your insurance broker to determine if there is any coverage available;
        • Evaluating whether future incidents can be prevented with training, equipment or other measures;
        • Evaluating the adequacy of the immediate response following the incident.
          (Were medical personnel contacted in a timely fashion?); and
        • Identifying how the organization’s response to a similar incident could be improved.

When using youth volunteers (anyone under the age of 18), you will want to think about their duties and responsibilities and whether those activities are suitable. There are several things to consider when engaging youth volunteers:

      • In opportunities where children get involved alongside their parents, you should ensure the activity is suitable and that parents are briefed about any risks. In this type of activity, parents remain responsible for their children.
      • For opportunities in conjunction with other groups (e.g., schools, clubs), we recommend working with the group leader to ensure they have appropriate supervision and insurance in place. You should still assess the risk of the activity and ensure it is suitable for the group. Your organization is responsible for ensuring the activity is safe, but the supervision is the responsibility of the group leader.
      • For individual opportunities for youth, ensure that there will be proper oversight in place as they will not be as closely supervised as they may be in one of the two options noted above. At no time should a minor volunteer be alone with an adult.
      • Any projects for which you are providing equipment, such as gloves or gardening equipment, have appropriate sizes for the youth. It’s your responsibility as the nonprofit to ensure youth volunteers have a safe, healthy and positive experience.

In addition to ensuring that volunteers are safe, don’t forget to show your appreciation on a regular basis! The importance of a simple verbal “thank you” cannot be overstated.

Remember that a volunteer is an individual who performs hours of service for you without promise or expectation of compensation. Any compensation provided to a volunteer, such as a stipend, may inadvertently convert your volunteer into an employee. It can also jeopardize the legal protection for the volunteer under the Volunteer Protection Act.

While the law provides some relief for the negligent acts of volunteers, these laws vary widely from state to state and are often misunderstood. And, don’t make the mistake of assuming that your nonprofit will be exempt from liability because its purposes are charitable, or because the person responsible for the harm is a volunteer.

Managing volunteers is similar to managing paid staff. As with your staff, volunteers expect to be provided with rewarding experiences, treated with respect, trained as needed, properly supervised, and provided with feedback. Millions of volunteers across the country support our communities through all kinds of valuable service.  And, they provide this service with an admirable record of safety.  Since inadequate or improper training and oversight is frequently the cause of an incident and/or injury involving a volunteer, we hope these suggestions will help make that record of safety even better!  Wouldn’t we all prefer to avoid incidents and injury to people and property and spend money on direct services rather than on expensive claims against the organization and volunteer?

Learn More