Risk 101
In this Issue:

Director’s Message

Context Matters!

Anticipating the
Risk of Student
Protests

Portable Soccer
Goal
Recommendations

BC Court of Appeal
Narrows the Test
for Coverage under
an Additional
Insured
Endorsement?

About our
Organization

Our Team of
Professionals
Volume 16, Issue 2
Fall 2012
A Risk Management Newsletter for the University, College & Institute Protection Program Members
DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
Welcome to our latest publication and thank you for taking the time out to read this
edition. This edition has a wide variety of articles including: the test for coverage under
an Additional Insured endorsement; portable soccer goals; risks associated with
demonstrations; and establishing the context as part of the risk management process.
Congratulation to Phil Grewar, our Branch Executive Director, who won the Legacy
Category at this year’s Premier’s Awards.
Phil created a central office responsible for
coordinating the government's risk
management. As the province's first Director
of Risk Management he implemented
financial risk and loss control programs using
private sector methods. The office has saved
government close to $1 billion since the mid80’s, enabling schools, universities, colleges
and hospitals to devote more resources to
delivering services.
Ready or Not: Managing Risks in the Education Sector
Conference November 22nd and 23rd.
Please feel free to
copy and distribute
this edition of
Risk 101.
To receive future
electronic editions
of Risk 101
please email
protection.program@b
cucipp.org with “Risk
101” in the subject line
and include your
email address.
A webpage is available now providing up to date details of speakers, topics and on line
registration: http://cms.kwantlen.ca/Page12835.aspx
We look forward to seeing many of you there.
The Indemnity Approval Process.
We have a new resource on our website which talks to the indemnity approval process. It
is a paper entitled ‘Indemnity and Indemnity Approval’. We recommend reading this at
your convenience.
Please feel free to contact us at [email protected] to suggest any new
articles or website enhancements and, as always, we will do our best to accommodate
you.◄
Andrew Green, Director
Page 2 of 8
Risk 101
CONTEXT MATTERS!
The standard provincial risk management process
diagram illustrates the elements of a formal risk
assessment. You will note the first step, Establish the
Context, is not included as part of the risk assessment. It
is done before risk identification and often gets neglected
or skipped altogether. It is, however, perhaps the single
most important step.
Let us use the example of the 2010 Winter Olympic
Games to illustrate the importance of carefully
considering context.
Planning for BC to host the Games began well over a
decade before the Olympic torch was lit. The Vancouver
2010 Bid Society was formed in 1998. A risk assessment
was conducted to help the development of the formal bid
for the Games – the “pitch” to the International Olympic
Committee (IOC).
Pre-Bid Context from the year 2000:
 BC had experienced 8 consecutive years of employment growth, and had a consistent annual growth in
GDP of over 5%

We had not yet witnessed the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre (2001), Madrid train bombings (2004)
or London Underground bombings (2005)

The world had not yet experienced SARS, Bird Flu, Indonesian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina

Annual snowfall at Cypress averaged 150”
Games-time Context from 2010:
Fast forward 10 years to the months before the 2010 Games began:
 We were well into the 2nd year of a global economic crisis; the BC government went from a $4 Billion budget
surplus in 2006/07 to a budget deficit of $2.7 Billion

Terrorism was now a household word; we had grown accustomed to the huge changes in travel security;
Canada had troops fighting Taliban in Afghanistan; Bin Laden had explicitly targeted Canada; and the
“Toronto 18” had been arrested on terror-related charges

The H1N1 Pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in early June, 2009 and
remained until August, 2010—well after the Games were over

January 2010 turned out to be Vancouver’s warmest in 35 years; one of the main Olympic venues, Cypress
Mountain, was closed to the public a month before the Games to conserve snow
Any risk manager who suggested even one of these events as a risk back in 2000 would have been labelled a
naysayer. Imagine the reaction of folks if he or she had suggested that all of these conditions would change so
radically. Yet now, we all understand the significant influence that these conditions had on planning for the Games
and the risks they brought with them as they fundamentally changed the way we envisioned delivering on our
Olympic commitments. Few contexts change this radically, but the Olympic experience serves as a great lesson to
carefully consider the context in which you plan to operate, deliver services, or manage a project.
University, Colleges and Institute Protection Program can help you establish the context in which you operate, and
facilitate with an examination of what conditions might change, and how those changes can affect your ability to
deliver on your goals and objectives. Contact us for support with conducting your next risk assessment. ◄
Risk 101
Page 3 of 8
ANTICIPATING THE RISK OF STUDENT PROTESTS
Across the world people are marching for causes. Many are peaceful protests, but quickly, some have turned
violent and became destructive incidents. Last year in Europe, there were a number of large rallies driven by
students protesting about large increases in fees.
In British Columbia (BC), we have seen riots in the aftermath of the Stanley Cup, and occupy protests in our larger
cities. So far we have not seen the larger scale protests by students here in BC, but in Eastern Canada they have
not only had a large number of student arrests in the occupy protest, but several student specific incidents that
signal a worrying trend:

The longest student strike in Quebec’s history forced classes to close and resulted in over 450 student arrests
this year:

As seen in Europe, students in Ontario assembled at Queen’s Park to protest against government restrictions
on student rebates;

Around 1,000 students caused over $100,000 worth of damages in London, Ontario on St. Patrick’s day.
Though this incident differs from the others as it was not politically motivated, it shows the potential severity of
an incident.
These actions took place starting in February and March of this year and all show how this type of civil unrest can
quickly become a problem.
Free speech rightly allows for students and others to peacefully protest and this activity has taken place in Canada
for a number of decades. The risks with these activities is that a large peaceful protest can very quickly become
either physically violent, cause damage to property or can be taken over by a destructive element.
In anticipation of this ever increasing risk, schools, universities or colleges need:

An effective way of identifying or anticipating risk potential;

An emergency response plan that is capable of being put into operation with the utmost efficiency.
Although we have not seen any major unrest for some time, campuses enjoy no special immunity against student
or other types of protest. In 1968 a lower mainland university was subjected to a student occupation which lasted
for days and resulted in over a hundred arrests. In part, that activism was a reflection of the times and the unrest
regarding civil rights, nuclear weapons testing and the Vietnam War, etcetera.
There are always touch points for unrest, and sadly there are risks that the possibility for an organized protest to
be hijacked in favour of minority or radical interests.
Fortunately, most student demonstrations are planned well in advance and are well publicized with flyers around
campus and information being made available to the student population. Social networking and student
organization websites can be monitored for upcoming events as well. In all but a few exceptional circumstances, it
is unlikely that a demonstration will spontaneously occur. This makes it possible for campus security and faculty to
be aware of events well in advance and prepare appropriately.
Rarely is a demonstration planned to be violent or destructive, but if things were to change from what is planned it
is important to be ready. Having said that, there may be an element that plans on increasing the level of
destruction or violence and it is important to have a plan in place to respond if that behaviour should occur.
A common expression is that “the planning is more important than the plan.” The first step is to recognize such an
event could occur, and then to plan ahead. Develop clear protocols for communications, briefing of decision
makers, responses to media interest, additional personnel or equipment, security or police response.
(Continued on page 4)
Page 4 of 8
Risk 101
ANTICIPATING THE RISK OF STUDENT PROTESTS
(Continued from page 3)
A new wrinkle to protest activities is the “Flash Mob,” where the ubiquitous social media is harnessed to draw large
numbers of people together at a given place and time. If these events can be organized in a very short time then our
responses need to be nimble as well. This takes us back to planning and being prepared to respond to a given
situation. If for example, there is a decision made to lock down a building, who can authorize that, who will do it, and
how will they do it? Who will communicate with the student population? Who will be authorized to speak with
protest leaders or with the media?
In the event of damage, losses should always be reported to the University, College and Institute Protection Program
(UCIPP) immediately. Full details of how to report a claim can be found on the UCIPP web site, and have been
outlined in our previous article from our fall 2011 publication entitled ‘What to do when faced with a Property Claim◄
PORTABLE SOCCER GOAL RECOMMENDATIONS
This article outlines the main risks and what has to be done to minimize these risks both in and out of soccer
season.
The speed of falling goal posts can pose a serious risk of injury or even a possible
fatality for students, teachers, visiting children or other members of the public. Over
the years we have dealt with many enquiries with regards to this risk, and we have
received an increased number of enquiries over this summer following an unfortunate
fatal accident, which was subsequently reported in the press.
Statistics from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission have shown over 35
deaths recorded since 1979 as a result of soccer goals falling over. These figures are
based on both homemade and professionally manufactured goal posts. In Canada
there have also been a number of fatalities in recent years.
The main identified risks:
 Portable soccer goals are an attractive nuisance for students or visiting children as many see them as a
climbing structure and will hang from the cross bar. Such activities can result in the structure tipping over as
body weight shifts the posts centre of gravity;

Poor maintenance, storage or installation can increase the risk of failure.
A number of people, either as a spectator, or as a participant that have been injured or killed by falling goal posts.
To reduce the likelihood of such injuries the University, College and Institute Protection Program strongly
recommends risk mitigation strategies form part of policy.
Secure:

The goals must be securely anchored and counter weighted in line with CSA standards and manufacturers
guidelines;

Always install the posts on a flat level field;

Ensure labelling is fully visible as an instruction for the future;

Homemade goal posts should not be used as they are not tried and tested from a safety perspective.
(Continued on page 5)
Risk 101
Page 5 of 8
PORTABLE SOCCER GOAL RECOMMENDATIONS
(Continued from page 4)
Supervision:

Whilst in use, adequate supervision should be in place;

Immediately discourage any climbing activity.
Storage:
 When not in use remove netting to discourage climbing;

Whilst not in use, goals can be stabilized by being chained to nearby sturdy structures;

Out of season the goals should be dismantled for storage;

Special care should be taken when either moving or reassembling posts after storage.
Maintenance:
 After correct installation, a regular maintenance policy is needed for both wear and tear
and one off occurrences such as vandalism;

Check and test all connecting hardware before use;

Any damaged or missing parts, padding, or fasteners should be immediately replaced before use.
Please contact your risk management consultant with any detailed enquiry you may have. ◄
Useful links for detailed background reading:
Consumer product safety alert – Caution: Movable goals can tip over and cause severe injury.
Goals must be anchored!
http://www.satorsoccer.com/Soccer-Goals/departments/53/
Soccer Goalposts article including safety and testing.
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Consumers/Product_and_service_safety/Childrens_products/Soccer_goalposts.html
Make Safety your goal: Check it, Secure it, test it, respect it.
http://www.footballnsw.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy/gp_brochure.pdf
BC COURT OF APPEAL NARROWS THE TEST FOR COVERAGE UNDER AN
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
The following article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Nigel Kent. It was originally published in the
July 6, 2012 edition of Clark Wilson’s Insurable Interest publication. The importance of this article for schools and
colleges is that the additional insured endorsement should match both the contractual terms. The fact that it is
narrowed now is a good thing for our clients and the program as it clarifies responsibilities of defence and
indemnity in matters where liability does not arise out of the use of the premises. We always recommend that your
legal counsel and your risk consultant from the program, review any agreement before you initiate their use.
By Nigel Kent
On June 29, 2012, the BC Court of Appeal issued judgment in Vernon Vipers Hockey Club v. Canadian Recreation
Excellence (Vernon) Corporation, 2012 BCCA 291 and in doing so narrowed the scope of coverage for persons
(Continued on page 6)
Page 6 of 8
Risk 101
BC COURT OF APPEAL NARROWS THE TEST FOR COVERAGE UNDER AN
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
(Continued from page 5)
added to a CGL policy by way of an "Additional Insured" endorsement.
The Named Insured's business will frequently involve contracts which require other parties to be added to and
protected by the Named Insured's liability policy. This sort of requirement is common in commercial leases, rental
agreements, construction contracts and the like.
In Canada, the most common form of Additional Insured endorsement will usually add the third parties as
Additional Insureds under the policy "…but only in respect of liability arising out of the Named Insured's
operations". This qualification raises questions about the "reach" of the coverage under the Additional Insured
endorsement: what sort of link to the Named Insured's business does the phrase "arising out of" import? Does the
coverage extend to the Additional Insured's own negligent conduct or only to liability imposed on that party
because of the Named Insured's negligent conduct?
In the Vernon Vipers case, the plaintiff slipped and fell as he was leaving the hockey
rink facility to buy some refreshment at a retail outlet across the street. The complex
was the home of the Vernon Vipers Hockey Club and it was owned and managed by the
municipality and CREVC. The latter two entities were added to the hockey club's CGL
policy "but only in respect of liability arising out of the [hockey club's] operations".
The plaintiff sued only the owner and manager of the complex and did not name the
hockey club as a defendant. He claimed he lost his footing as a result of defective
lighting and made a variety of negligence and Occupiers Liability allegations against the
owner/operator of the complex relating to lightings, warnings, safe walking routes, etc.
The owner/operator turned to the hockey club's liability insurer seeking coverage for the claim under the hockey
club's policy by virtue of the Additional Insured endorsement.
The question squarely before the court, then, was whether the alleged liability for unsafe premises "arose out of
the hockey club operations". In particular, the focus was on the nature and extent of connection required between
the injury and the operations in order that the former might be said to "arise out of" the latter.
Both the Supreme Court and the BC Court of Appeal held there was insufficient connection between the injury and
the hockey club operations to trigger coverage under the policy. The Court of Appeal held:
"At the heart of this appeal is a question of pure law: what degree of connectedness is required by the
phrase "arising out of"? Does it mean simple "but for" causation…..or does it require a stronger nexus?
I conclude that the latter interpretation is the correct one";
"…the correct interpretation of "arising out of" and "arising from" in the context of an insurance contract requires a
closer causal connection than a simple "but for" test…Though [some case law] contain excerpts which, taken in
isolation, seem to equate "arising out of" with simple causation, this interpretation is not supported by a reading of
the cases in their entirety. Compliance with a simple "but for" test is necessary, but not sufficient;"
"Merely incidental or fortuitous connections are not enough to satisfy the causation standard;"
"I conclude that the contractual term "arising out of the Named Insured's operations" as written in the hockey club's
policy endorsement, imposes a causal requirement greater than a simple "but for" test. Borrowing from the cases
discussed above, the phrase "arising out of" should be construed as requiring "an unbroken chain of causation"
and a connection that is more than "merely incidental or fortuitous."
(Continued on page 7)
Risk 101
Page 7 of 8
BC COURT OF APPEAL NARROWS THE TEST FOR COVERAGE UNDER AN
ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
(Continued from page 6)
The court reviewed a number of cases where the connection between the Named Insured's operations and the
alleged source of the Additional Insureds liability was "direct and apparent." For example, the claimant struck by a
stray lacrosse ball launched out of bounds during a lacrosse game was an obvious and sufficient "causal link"
between the sports club activities and the injury such that the Additional Insured municipality in that case was
covered under the lacrosse team's policy.
In the Vernon Vipers case however, the court held,
"By contrast, the link here is far more tenuous, even allowing for a broad and liberal interpretation to the term
"operations". No aspect of the hockey club's operations are alleged to have caused [the plaintiff] to fall and injure
himself. The most that the pleadings allege is that these operations caused him to be in a place where, for
unrelated reasons, he became injured. This might have been enough to meet a simple "but for" test but in my view,
it cannot satisfy the more rigorous causal requirement established in [the case law]."
Most of these coverage contests occur in the context of "duty to defend" coverage under a CGL policy to which the
Additional Insured has been added. The Vernon Vipers case represents a narrowing of coverage for such
Additional Insureds and makes it conditional upon a closer causation requirement than a simple "but for" test such
as an unbroken chain of causation and a stronger connection that is more than merely incidental or fortuitous.
The implications of this decision may be significant. Questions to be considered in all of
these Additional Insured cases include:
Does the language of the Additional Insured endorsement match the requirement of the
contract between the Named Insured and the third parties who are supposed to be
added to coverage?
If the connection between the Named Insured's operations and the injury triggering the
source of the Additional Insureds liability is vague, must insurers assume the defence of
the Additional Insured on a "reservation of rights" basis (raising the prospects of a
denial of indemnity at a later date)?
Must different defence counsel be appointed for the Named Insured and the Additional Insured?
Are there additional conflicts as between the Named Insured and Additional Insured arising out of issues such as
allocation of fault, indemnity provisions in contracts between the parties, and so on?
Does the Additional Insured have its own liability coverage in any event and, if so, how is the priority of overlapping
coverage determined?
While most endorsements in Canada extend fairly broad coverage for Additional Insureds, each case is fraught
with its own unique complications and it would be wise for insurers to obtain advice from coverage counsel before
stepping into the fray.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Nigel Kent at [email protected].◄
Page 8 of 8
Risk 101
About Our Organization...
We are the Client Services Team for the University, College & Institute Protection
Program (UCIPP). UCIPP is a self-insurance program which is funded by the Province
of BC. The program is housed within the offices of the Risk Management Branch of the
Ministry of Finance which also has responsibility for similar programs such as the
Health Care Protection Program, and the Schools Protection Program. As part of the
services of our program, we provide risk management and claims & litigation
management services to UCIPP member entities including all institutions.
Our Team of Professionals
Risk 101
is published two times
per year by the
University, College and
Institute Protection
Program
Andrew Green – Director (250) 952-0785
[email protected]
Janet Hoefer – Senior Risk Management Consultant (250) 952-0851
[email protected]
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Suzanne Armour – Senior Risk Management Consultant (250) 952-0864
[email protected]
MAILING ADDRESS:
PO Box 3586
Victoria BC V8W 9V1
Lori Watson – Risk Management Consultant (250) 356-6111
[email protected]
Margo Piikkila – Senior Claims Examiner (250) 952-0842
[email protected]
PHONE:
(250) 356-1794
Kirsten Coupe—Senior Claims Examiner/Legal Counsel (250) 356-5578
[email protected]
FAX:
(250) 356-6222
Robert Flett— Senior Claims Examiner (250) 952-0834
[email protected]
rob-
Darren Nelson—Assistant Claims Examiner (250) 952-0845
[email protected]
In addition to the core Education Team above, UCIPP continues to rely on the expertise
of many individuals within the Risk Management Branch including:
Kim Oldham, Director, Claims and Litigation Management
(250) 952-0837 [email protected]
CLAIMS FAX:
(250) 356-0661
E-MAIL:
Protection.program
@bcucipp.org
We’re on the Web!
See us at:
www.bcucipp.org
Shaun Fynes, Chief Security Officer, Government Security Office
(250) 387-0522 [email protected]
It should be clearly understood that this document and the information contained within is not legal advice and is
provided for guidance from a risk management perspective only. It is not intended as a comprehensive or exhaustive
review of the law and readers are advised to seek independent legal advice where appropriate.