Thoughts & Advice on Non-Profit Club Liability Insurance
8-24-07 by Ron Boedeker MCKPC
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice. I am a hobbyist and a long time club officer. My goal in this letter is to help guide other club members as they begin looking at club liability issues. This letter is based on my personal experience in doing this for my home club.
The primary way to protect a club and its officers is with very good insurance. Partial liability protection is offered thru AKCA’s insurance and federal & state “Volunteer Protection” laws. It’s very important to understand that neither AKCA’s insurance nor the federal or state laws offer anywhere near comprehensive coverage for the full range of club liability exposure. This lack of coverage also applies to the Koi Health Advisors (KHAs).
My first & primary advice to anyone considering buying club insurance is to pay a consulting fee to a personal injury lawyer (and get a second opinion too) and find out first hand how that lawyer would pursue a claim against your club or you personally as an officer.
The most important thing you will learn is that if you do not have the correct insurance coverage, the club or the officers personally will have to pay the lawyers to defend against the lawsuit and that cost is very substantial. It will probably be several thousand dollars and if the case has merit, the fees will be far more. It is largely immaterial whether you eventually win or lose the lawsuit, it’s the lawyer’s fees that will get you first.
It’s also important to understand, that if you do lose the judgment, the lawyers can and will go after the officer’s home owners insurance to get enough money for their clients.
Club insurance can be viewed as a “Pre Paid” legal plan, it’s most valuable feature is that they provide the lawyers to defend the club.
This is where things get tricky though, they will only defend the provisions and limits of their policy.
There are several different classes of liability risk that need to be covered. The major ones are the classic slip & fall accidents where someone is injured; the club business affairs area and the officer’s personal conduct or actions.
No one policy covers everything a club needs, so this is why it is very important for you to work with an insurance agent from a agency that handles small business insurance accounts and has adequate experience in this field.
Good solid club protection would include: Comprehensive General Liability, Acts & Omissions, Directors & Officers and Employee Practices coverage.The cost of these combined policies can exceed $2,000 per year. Not having them can also cost you dearly.
Within these policies are numerous riders. Several of the biggest are: club owned equipment; non-owned auto (this is where you are driving your car on club business and cause an accident & the club get named in the lawsuit), employee theft & dishonesty; Alcohol to include wine; no-fault medical; advertising damage; all members & volunteers as additional insured and duty to defend.
The policies coverage’s will vary from one company to the next, so it pays to get quotes from several different companies. Some companies will offer an attractively priced policy, but it will be riddled with exceptions & exclusions. Others will cost more, but will be most useful if you ever need it.
One caveat to this is that if the officers clearly understand and except the risk or buy their own insurance then the club’s need for Directors & Officers coverage is much less.
Several things are also evident.
From a liability standpoint, we fall under pretty much the same rules as a small business.
We have previously understood that AKCA’s insurance gave us adequate protection along with the concept that we as volunteers could only be sued for the amount of our salary (which is zero). Both of these ideas turn out to be false in the real world.
The lawyers, the insurance reps and the club leaders all agree that in the event of an accident at a home, the owner of the property where the accident happened will be named. The club can also be named, because it was the club’s event and depending on several things, the club officers could also be named.
The various insurance company lawyers will then have to decide how to divide up the claim.
A key point here is that unless there is insurance, everyone named in the lawsuit must hire an attorney to defend themselves. Even if they are eventually dismissed from the judgment, they still need to pay their legal fees.
Deliberate acts are for the most part not covered under the policies either.
Club liability insurance is clearly is an issue no one in the koi world wants to discuss in public. The koi world leaders realize that most of the clubs in the hobby can not afford to buy adequate insurance and if the truth about everyone’s real degree of liability were realized, the hobby would die out (as would most everything else we deal with that’s not adequately insured). Disgruntled ex-members and business issues cause most of the legal problems for clubs, not accidents. The legal things are general kept out of the public eye and yes, these things do happen.
Another layer of protection is for the club to form a Non Profit Corporation. Apparently this is commonly being done and offers a significant layer of protection at a very reasonable cost. This does not reduce the need for insurance, but it does protect the general membership and makes a lawsuit more challenging.
I have learned a lot about insurance & club liability here lately and I guess we have been living in world where we just hope nothing goes wrong. It’s interesting that two of the lawyers commented that the legal system does not have any sympathy for clubs or people who come in after a lawsuit is filed and ask for sympathy. They feel that we as a club are really a small business and it is our responsibility to learn & obey the rules, just like any small business would.
The big questions that need to ask ourselves are:
Do we really need it?
Can we afford it?
Can we afford to not have it?
A lawyer I consulted suggests that we ask our selves these questions:
Are we willing to take a degree of risk (however small) that would in danger our homes & assets over a club issue?
Is our home owner insurance willing to pay the lawyers fees & possible judgment over a club issue (some will not) and does the policy have adequate limits to cover it?
We should ask people we know who are in business or a profession if they would insist on Liability and D & O coverage before they would serve in a club?
This level of insurance would certainly be a very big load on the club’s treasury, but the risks are real too.
An interesting note on the agents profit, apparently the profit to the agency is about 12 to 15% of the policy premium and the agent get 30 to 50% of that. So a $750 premium at 15% = $112.50 to the agency and $112.50 x 50% = $56.25 to the agent per year. Now I understand why very few agents would even give me a quote.
Scenarios & Questions:
In a general sense, there are two main categories of concern, one is injuries & property damage and the other is club business.
Because the legal system is very complicated, it is only possible to get general answers to our questions. In every claim, it is necessary to determine the root cause of the claim and to apportion the blame or liability accordingly, so the lawyer will cast a wide a net as is possible to try to get satisfaction for their clients.
For our purposes, that means the club’s and the home owner’s insurance will both be involved in any claim. The idea being that the home owner built the pond and there by created the hazard.
Club event at private homes:
Open to club members and the public - Club meetings, pond tours, special events etc. – someone is injured. - The claim would be filed against the home owner, the club and possibly the officers. The insurances would work out a settlement.
Are there any circumstances where the club or the officers would need to retain an attorney? Possibly, if the claimant could not recover enough money from the Home owner and the club, then they could go after the officers too. D & O coverage needed.
Could the officers be named separately? Yes, See above.
Club event at public or commercial establishments; open to club members and the public - Club meetings, pond tours, etc. Same as above.
Club Official business:
Disgruntled, vindictive, insulted member or ex member sues the club and/or officers – Probably the club is covered in policy, but most likely the officers need D & O coverage.
Someone sues over a club business practice (the club does or fails to do something) - Probably the club is covered in policy, but should have the “Acts & Omissions’ coverage, most likely the officers need D & O coverage.
There is a considerable amount of overlap depending on the individual situation between these policies. That why it is best to have them all. Skipping one can easily leave you with an expensive gap in coverage.
These are examples of things covered in a Comprehensive Liability Policy including riders:
General club liability
Coverage in Commercial or Public buildings
Medical bills
Club equipment
Non Owned auto - Members driving on club business.
Member dishonesty or theft
These are examples of things covered in an Acts & Omissions policy:
The club does or fails to do something that causes injury or loss.
These are examples of things covered in a Directors & Officers policy:
The full board, a group of officers or an individual officer takes a business action that is illegal or that someone does not like.
The full board, a group of officers or an individual officer insults or discriminates against some one (race, creed, color, sex & etc.); attacks someone (physically or verbally).
These are examples of things covered in an Employment Practices policy:
An action is taken the causes someone to feel treated illegally or unfairly.
The actual Volunteer Protection Act can be printed by going to
http://www.wpsardc.org/volunteer%20protection%20act%20of%201997%20.pdf
PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997
VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997
111 STAT. 218 PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997
Public Law 105–19
105th Congress
An Act
To provide certain protections to volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental
entities in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer Protection Act of
1997’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares that—
(1) the willingness of volunteers to offer their services
is deterred by the potential for liability actions against them;
(2) as a result, many nonprofit public and private organizations
and governmental entities, including voluntary associations,
social service agencies, educational institutions, and other
civic programs, have been adversely affected by the withdrawal
of volunteers from boards of directors and service in other
capacities;
(3) the contribution of these programs to their communities
is thereby diminished, resulting in fewer and higher cost programs
than would be obtainable if volunteers were participating;
(4) because Federal funds are expended on useful and
cost-effective social service programs, many of which are
national in scope, depend heavily on volunteer participation,
and represent some of the most successful public-private partnerships,
protection of volunteerism through clarification and
limitation of the personal liability risks assumed by the volunteer
in connection with such participation is an appropriate
subject for Federal legislation;
(5) services and goods provided by volunteers and nonprofit
organizations would often otherwise be provided by private
entities that operate in interstate commerce;
(6) due to high liability costs and unwarranted litigation
costs, volunteers and nonprofit organizations face higher costs
in purchasing insurance, through interstate insurance markets,
to cover their activities; and
(7) clarifying and limiting the liability risk assumed by
volunteers is an appropriate subject for Federal legislation
because—
(A) of the national scope of the problems created by
the legitimate fears of volunteers about frivolous, arbitrary,
or capricious lawsuits;
42 USC 14501.
42 USC 14501
note.
Volunteer
Protection Act of
1997.
June 18, 1997
[S. 543]
PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997 111 STAT. 219
(B) the citizens of the United States depend on, and
the Federal Government expends funds on, and provides
tax exemptions and other consideration to, numerous social
programs that depend on the services of volunteers;
(C) it is in the interest of the Federal Government
to encourage the continued operation of volunteer service
organizations and contributions of volunteers because the
Federal Government lacks the capacity to carry out all
of the services provided by such organizations and volunteers;
and
(D)(i) liability reform for volunteers, will promote the
free flow of goods and services, lessen burdens on interstate
commerce and uphold constitutionally protected due process
rights; and
(ii) therefore, liability reform is an appropriate use
of the powers contained in article 1, section 8, clause 3
of the United States Constitution, and the fourteenth
amendment to the United States Constitution.
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to promote the
interests of social service program beneficiaries and taxpayers and
to sustain the availability of programs, nonprofit organizations,
and governmental entities that depend on volunteer contributions
by reforming the laws to provide certain protections from liability
abuses related to volunteers serving nonprofit organizations and
governmental entities.
SEC. 3. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) PREEMPTION.—This Act preempts the laws of any State
to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except
that this Act shall not preempt any State law that provides additional
protection from liability relating to volunteers or to any
category of volunteers in the performance of services for a nonprofit
organization or governmental entity.
(b) ELECTION OF STATE REGARDING NONAPPLICABILITY.—This
Act shall not apply to any civil action in a State court against
a volunteer in which all parties are citizens of the State if such
State enacts a statute in accordance with State requirements for
enacting legislation—
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act shall
not apply, as of a date certain, to such civil action in the
State; and
(3) containing no other provisions.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR VOLUNTEERS.
(a) LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR VOLUNTEERS.—Except as provided
in subsections (b) and (d), no volunteer of a nonprofit organization
or governmental entity shall be liable for harm caused by
an act or omission of the volunteer on behalf of the organization
or entity if—
(1) the volunteer was acting within the scope of the volunteer’s
responsibilities in the nonprofit organization or governmental
entity at the time of the act or omission;
(2) if appropriate or required, the volunteer was properly
licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate authorities
for the activities or practice in the State in which the harm
occurred, where the activities were or practice was undertaken
42 USC 14503.
42 USC 14502.
111 STAT. 220 PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997
within the scope of the volunteer’s responsibilities in the nonprofit
organization or governmental entity;
(3) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal misconduct,
gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious,
flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual
harmed by the volunteer; and
(4) the harm was not caused by the volunteer operating
a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which
the State requires the operator or the owner of the vehicle,
craft, or vessel to—
(A) possess an operator’s license; or
(B) maintain insurance.
(b) CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITY OF VOLUNTEERS TO ORGANIZATIONS
AND ENTITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect any civil action brought by any nonprofit organization
or any governmental entity against any volunteer of such organization
or entity.
(c) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY.—
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability
of any nonprofit organization or governmental entity with respect
to harm caused to any person.
(d) EXCEPTIONS TO VOLUNTEER LIABILITY PROTECTION.—If the
laws of a State limit volunteer liability subject to one or more
of the following conditions, such conditions shall not be construed
as inconsistent with this section:
(1) A State law that requires a nonprofit organization or
governmental entity to adhere to risk management procedures,
including mandatory training of volunteers.
(2) A State law that makes the organization or entity
liable for the acts or omissions of its volunteers to the same
extent as an employer is liable for the acts or omissions of
its employees.
(3) A State law that makes a limitation of liability inapplicable
if the civil action was brought by an officer of a State
or local government pursuant to State or local law.
(4) A State law that makes a limitation of liability
applicable only if the nonprofit organization or governmental
entity provides a financially secure source of recovery for
individuals who suffer harm as a result of actions taken by
a volunteer on behalf of the organization or entity. A financially
secure source of recovery may be an insurance policy within
specified limits, comparable coverage from a risk pooling mechanism,
equivalent assets, or alternative arrangements that satisfy
the State that the organization or entity will be able
to pay for losses up to a specified amount. Separate standards
for different types of liability exposure may be specified.
(e) LIMITATION ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES BASED ON THE ACTIONS
OF VOLUNTEERS.—
(1) GENERAL RULE.—Punitive damages may not be awarded
against a volunteer in an action brought for harm based on
the action of a volunteer acting within the scope of the volunteer’s
responsibilities to a nonprofit organization or governmental
entity unless the claimant establishes by clear and
convincing evidence that the harm was proximately caused
by an action of such volunteer which constitutes willful or
criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to
the rights or safety of the individual harmed.
PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997 111 STAT. 221
(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Paragraph (1) does not create a cause
of action for punitive damages and does not preempt or supersede
any Federal or State law to the extent that such law
would further limit the award of punitive damages.
(f) EXCEPTIONS TO LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The limitations on the liability of a volunteer
under this Act shall not apply to any misconduct that—
(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or
act of international terrorism (as that term is defined in
section 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been
convicted in any court;
(B) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used
in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(C) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted
in any court;
(D) involves misconduct for which the defendant has
been found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights
law; or
(E) where the defendant was under the influence (as
determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating
alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to effect subsection (a)(3) or (e).
SEC. 5. LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—In any civil action against a volunteer,
based on an action of a volunteer acting within the scope of the
volunteer’s responsibilities to a nonprofit organization or governmental
entity, the liability of the volunteer for noneconomic loss
shall be determined in accordance with subsection (b).
(b) AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each defendant who is a volunteer, shall
be liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated
to that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance with
paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect to
which that defendant is liable. The court shall render a separate
judgment against each defendant in an amount determined
pursuant to the preceding sentence.
(2) PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSIBILITY.—For purposes of determining
the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a defendant
who is a volunteer under this section, the trier of fact shall
determine the percentage of responsibility of that defendant
for the claimant’s harm.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) ECONOMIC LOSS.—The term ‘‘economic loss’’ means any
pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of earnings
or other benefits related to employment, medical expense
loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, burial costs,
and loss of business or employment opportunities) to the extent
recovery for such loss is allowed under applicable State law.
(2) HARM.—The term ‘‘harm’’ includes physical, nonphysical,
economic, and noneconomic losses.
42 USC 14505.
42 USC 14504.
111 STAT. 222 PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997
(3) NONECONOMIC LOSSES.—The term ‘‘noneconomic losses’’
means losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement,
loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship,
loss of consortium (other than loss of domestic service),
hedonic damages, injury to reputation and all other nonpecuniary
losses of any kind or nature.
(4) NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘nonprofit
organization’’ means—
(A) any organization which is described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt
from tax under section 501(a) of such Code and which
does not practice any action which constitutes a hate crime
referred to in subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note); or
(B) any not-for-profit organization which is organized
and conducted for public benefit and operated primarily
for charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or
health purposes and which does not practice any action
which constitutes a hate crime referred to in subsection
(b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act
(28 U.S.C. 534 note).
(5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the United
States, or any political subdivision of any such State, territory,
or possession.
(6) VOLUNTEER.—The term ‘‘volunteer’’ means an individual
performing services for a nonprofit organization or a governmental
entity who does not receive—
(A) compensation (other than reasonable reimbursement
or allowance for expenses actually incurred); or
(B) any other thing of value in lieu of compensation,
in excess of $500 per year, and such term includes a volunteer
serving as a director, officer, trustee, or direct service volunteer.
PUBLIC LAW 105–19—JUNE 18, 1997 111 STAT. 223
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 543 (H.R. 911):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 105–101, Pt. 1 (Comm. on the Judiciary) accompanying
H.R. 911.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 143 (1997):
May 1, considered and passed Senate.
May 21, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 911. Senate
concurred in House amendment.
®
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—This Act shall take effect 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) APPLICATION.—This Act applies to any claim for harm
caused by an act or omission of a volunteer where that claim
is filed on or after the effective date of this Act but only if the
harm that is the subject of the claim or the conduct that caused
such harm occurred after such effective date.
Approved June 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0606.htm
|
|
|
|
|
August 12, 2005 |
|
2005-R-0606 |
|
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS |
|
|
|
By: Janet L. Kaminski, Associate Legislative Attorney |
You asked if a nonprofit organization’s board of directors needs directors and officers insurance.
SUMMARY
The law does not require a nonprofit organization’s board of directors to purchase directors and officers insurance. Whether or not they decide to purchase it depends on the organization’s risk assessment of its operations, including consideration of any liability immunity available under federal and state laws. Board members should discuss their coverage needs and options with their insurance agent and attorney.
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS (D&O) INSURANCE
Similar to those of for-profit companies, directors and officers of a nonprofit organization face litigation exposure. This exposure includes allegations of (1) wrongful acts, including conflict of interest and self-dealing; (2) financial mismanagement; (3) dissemination of false or misleading information; and (4) negligence, including the failure to supervise the activities of others and evading responsibility. Regardless of actual liability, lawsuits filed need to be defended and costs accrue.
D&O insurance provides financial protection for certain events (“perils”) specified in the policy and includes coverage for defense costs, whether the litigation result is a judgment or settlement. Depending on how the policy defines “insured,” a D&O policy may cover acts by directors, officers, trustees, employees, and volunteers.
D&O insurance may or may not cover employment-related lawsuits, including discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination. If it does not, an organization may purchase a separate Employment Practices Liability Insurance policy.
A general liability policy covers injury and damage resulting from the organization’s premises, products, and operations. It might not cover the actions of the directors and officers.
D&O versus Errors and Omission Insurance
D&O insurance protects against liability arising from wrongful acts by its directors and officers. It generally covers any actual or alleged act or omission, error, misstatement, misleading statement, and neglect or breach of duty by an insured person while performing his responsibilities. It should not be confused with errors and omission (E&O) insurance
E&O insurance covers liability related to performance failures and negligence with respect to products and services, not management actions.
D&O versus Personal Liability Insurance
While D&O insurance covers damage resulting from wrongful acts by management, it does not cover bodily injury or property damage.
Personal liability insurance, including a homeowners or umbrella policy, covers bodily injury and property damage for which the insured person is liable. It generally includes coverage for injury and damage arising from volunteer activities, but excludes business endeavors.
FEDERAL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEERS
The 1997 federal Volunteer Protection Act (VPA) (copy enclosed) establishes a minimum level of protection for volunteers (including directors, officers, and trustees) of nonprofit organizations and government entities, for harm caused by their acts or omissions if:
1. the volunteer was acting within the scope of his responsibilities;
2. the volunteer, if necessary, was properly licensed, certified, or authorized to act;
3. the resulting harm was not willful, criminal or reckless misconduct, gross negligence, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the person harmed; and
4. the resulting harm was not caused by a volunteer operating a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft for which the state requires an operator’s license and insurance (42 U. S. C. § 14503(a)).
The protection extends to volunteers who perform services for a nonprofit organization or government entity and receives (1) no compensation or (2) nothing of value in lieu of compensation in excess of $ 500 per year. State law can provide more protection or preempt the VPA by explicitly stating that it does not apply (42 U. S. C. § 14502). Connecticut has not done so, thus the VPA applies in Connecticut.
The VPA does not shield a nonprofit organization from liability or from being sued. It protects volunteers from being named directly in lawsuits (except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct).
STATE IMMUNITY FOR NONPROFIT’S DIRECTORS
The Connecticut legislature abolished the common law doctrine of charitable immunity in 1967 (CGS § 52-557d). Charitable immunity provided a charitable organization a complete defense to tort liability.
The legislature later enacted statutory immunity for a nonprofit organization’s unpaid directors, officers, and trustees (PA 86-338, § 10, and PA 87-227, § 7). The law grants civil liability immunity to an uncompensated director, officer, or trustee of a nonprofit tax-exempt organization for damage or injury resulting from an act, error, or omission in the course of his policy- or decision-making responsibilities as long as he acts in good faith and within the scope of his official functions. No immunity is available if the resulting harm is caused by his reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct (CGS § 52-557m).
The state law, however, cannot provide immunity for violating federal statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Civil Rights laws.
JLK: ts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Vet Law - Exemptions
URL: http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW%20%2018%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2018%20.%2092%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%2018%20.%2092%20.060.htm
And
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=18.92.060&fuseaction=section
RCW 18.92.060
Licensing exemptions.
Nothing in this chapter applies to:
(1) Commissioned veterinarians in the United States military services or veterinarians
employed by Washington state and federal agencies while performing official duties;
(2) A person practicing veterinary medicine upon his or her own animal;
(3) A person advising with respect to or performing the castrating and dehorning of cattle,
castrating and docking of sheep, castrating of swine, caponizing of poultry, or artificial
insemination of animals;
(4)(a) A person who is a regularly enrolled student in a veterinary school or training course
approved under RCW 18.92.015 and performing duties or actions assigned by his or her instructors or working under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian during a school vacation period or (b) a person performing assigned duties under the supervision of a veterinarian within the established framework of an internship program recognized by the board;
(5) A veterinarian regularly licensed in another state consulting with a licensed veterinarian in this state;
(6) A veterinary technician or veterinary medication clerk acting under the supervision and
control of a licensed veterinarian. The practice of a veterinary technician or veterinary
medication clerk is limited to the performance of services which are authorized by the board;
(7) An owner being assisted in practice by his or her employees when employed in the conduct of the owner's business;
(8) An owner being assisted in practice by some other person gratuitously;
(9) The implanting in their own animals of any electronic device for identifying animals by
established humane societies and animal control organizations that provide appropriate training,
as determined by the veterinary board of governors, and/or direct or indirect supervision by a
licensed veterinarian;
(10) The implanting of any electronic device by a public fish and wildlife agency for the
identification of fish or wildlife.
[2000 c 93 ' 11; 1995 c 317 ' 2; 1993 c 78 ' 4; 1974 ex.s. c 44 ' 4; 1967 ex.s. c 50 ' 5; 1959 c 92 ' 13; 1941 c 71 ' 20; Rem. Supp. 1941 ' 10040‑20. Prior: 1907 c 124 ' 15.]
