MSU's $500M settlement with Nassar victims comes with troubling caveat
and will not stop the movement through the legislature. also, insurance industry may push some parts of it too, and they have a firm hold on a number of legislators. (no politics)
Not the best look by MSU to even include this caveat, though.
Sparty No!
thing for them to do. They can't help it.
Just an FYI, UM is opposed to those two bills as well. It's not a good look for MSU, but the legislation is problematic from the institutions' perspective for a number of reasons. Currently if a rogue UM/MSU employee (security guard for example) committed sexual assualt by threat of a weapon while at work, and the victim was under 18 and wanted to sue UM/MSU, the victim would have to file the claim in the MI Court of Claims and comply with the filing rules of the applicable statute (i.e., within 1 year after the claim accrued and the claim would be time barred unless instituted within 3 years after the claim accrues).
Under the proposed new statute, this victim could sue UM/MSU for their employee's conduct at anytime (even 50 years later). You can see why most public institutions would be opposed to this legislation. It's still asinine to include it in the settlement agreement from a PR perspective.
Seems like a logical position. Doesn't seem too logical to put it into a settlement involving Nassar tho. Standard MSU.
The problem with statutes of limitations involving minors is precedent shows us children who are sexually assaulted rarely come forward until they are well into adulthood, if they even come forward at all. As the statutes currently exist, they harm those who are victimized as children (particularly young children) the most.
Also the rogue employee example is trotted out by opponents of this kind of legislation but it's not a good one. Institutions aren't on the hook for big payouts because someone did something they couldn't have foreseen, they're on the hook for what they did or didn't do after receiving reports of sexual assaults or other crimes
I understand the institutional opposition as they don't want added risk exposure. That doesn't mean the opposition is defensible.
Institutions aren't on the hook for big payouts because someone did something they couldn't have foreseen
That tends not to be the case. Any institution whose employees do anything - this applies to universities, companies, what have you - will get sued, because that's where the money is.
I was referring specifically to the larger settlements/judgements (MSU/PSU types) that usually involve negligence or mishandling after the fact, not just to being sued in general.
The 15 public universities in Michigan all oppose the bill. Good summary below.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/13/nassar-bills…
There are a ton of organizations that are questioning it. ACLU, Michigan Catholic Conference, school boards, cities/counties, etc.
Why would MSU care about politicians?
/s
MSU is extremely shitty in this and how it has been handled. Compared to PSU, I am completely shocked at how "light" MSU has gotten off.
It literally makes no sense for MSU to care about which laws the legislature passes or not, as none of them would apply to this situation.
However, John Engler very likely does care, and I'm concerned he has some fucked up back door deal cooked up with his buddies in Lansing that if he can detrail this reform package, the legislature will use taxpayer funds to pick up the tab for the settlements.
as to why he was brought in from the beginning
This isn't the first time pols and powerful people have done such things and it won't be the last.
Nice try smal fry.
Burn it down?
Hmmmm... is Sparty an insurance company now, too? This is how they roll. We will settle and pay the 100s of millions we owe your policyholders, but you have to agree to never sue our family of companies again.
From what I have read, insurance isn't covering this. And I don't believe ANY insurance company has insurance against rape.
Interim President John Engler has long said the costs will be covered by tuition and state aid. Lawmakers have said no state aid should be used.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/fox59/2018/05/16/larry-nassar-settlements-cost-michigan-state-500-million/615592002/
So, you can bet that MSU will start sending out fund raising letters to its alums asking to help pay off the victims! It will be interesting to see how much money MSU is going to raise.
intentional infliction of emotional distress, they will have alleged negligent hiring/supervision/training, and negligence can get coverage. however it would be juxtaposed against immunity from negligence that state institutions have for almost all of their functions.
Why would Engler state what he did? He didn't mention insurance. He specifically stated how they were going to pay for it.
How on earth is that an enforceable condition? If that's actually a condition, I doubt that would stand up if challenged.