Re: NW Ride Insurance

["Mary K. Krauss" <kraussberner@worldnet.att.net>]

Thank you very much for working so hard on this and other issues.  You're
right--the Board has to deal with making tough decisions wherein one or the
other party will be disappointed by the result. That sticky kind of work is
much appreciated by the vast majority of riders (many of us who are not up
to such a frustrating though important job...). 
I too am tired of people threatening "lawsuit" as a big hammer to scare
people with.  We can't get rid of the litigiousness in our culture if we
continue using these tactics.  No one in their right mind is going to hold
a ride manager liable for allowing a horse entry. One more time--all horses
have the potential to kick.  I had the gentlest mare alive who got upset at
an older mare(28), cornered her somehow in the very wide-open run in
shelter, and kicked her TO DEATH.  The younger mare had/has not
demonstrated aggression toward other horses before or since (in 6 years).
The owner of the deceased horse was amazing.  She felt that we would never
know how the altercation began and that it was not a human issue--that no
one, me or my horse, was to blame. I so respected her response and hope I
will behave similarly when/if the tables are ever turned. mkk

----------
> From: Merryben@aol.com
> To: SuGriff182@aol.com; ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Re: NW Ride Insurance
> Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 9:50 AM
> 
> In a message dated 10/16/98 11:22:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> SuGriff182@aol.com writes:
> 
> << would have found the
>  statement concerning my insurance company on page five of my original
protest
> >>
> 
> Like Randy, I have decided that this will be my last post on the subject.
 I
> am finding it increasingly difficult to think about this situation.  I
also do
> not appreciate the comments that seem to allege that the BOD did not read
or
> understand anything that was sent to them.  I dug out the protest
information
> and did indeed find your reference to page 5.  However, that was not an
> official anything from your company but merely a question asked.  I am
getting
> the feeling that the NWRM's want us to think that the insurance companies
will
> refuse to defend them in a lawsuit if they are "grossly negligent" and I
> seriously doubt that is true.  I work in the law department of probably
the
> largest insurance company in California and before that worked for the
> plaintiffs' side in personal injury and medical malpractice for 25 years
or
> so.  The insurance company owes their insureds a defense -- right or
wrong.
> If our insured is drunk and on drugs and hits someone, we are stuck with
> defending him under the contract of our policy with him.  We may not like
it
> and we may not renew their insurance but they will be covered for that
> particular incident, whether or not they are at fault. It just makes our
job
> harder.  .. I realize that everyone involved in this issue thinks they
are
> right and I think there are two sides.  But I for one am tired of the
idea
> that the BOD is a bunch of idiots who can neither read not understand the
> material sent to them.  Every time we vote on an issue, we seem to put up
with
> "ridecamp" abuse from the losing side.  A case in point is that one of
the BOD
> and I think it may have been me, accidently referred to by-laws, while
meaning
> Articles of Incorporation and got a snide and obnoxious post that
apparently
> the BOD didn't even know what they were voting on and did not know the
> difference between the two documents.  I have said this before about
being on
> the BOD and maybe it has gotten through to some people because there are
18
> candidates for the 8 Director at large positions. Although I did notice
that
> the biggest complainers are not the people who are running.  Sorry but
> sometimes I can't resist snide remarks of my own.   Maryben Stover