Ra-Aus Board Insurance- The Truth.

[winsor68]

I am going to post this... This is not an accusation... Just some information I was forwarded anonymously.

 

I post it here to make up your own minds...

 

The E-mail claims to be from the Ex-President Mr Runcimann...

 

This was in response to th“On 03/05/2012, at 2:30 PM, steve runciman <[email protected]> wrote:

 

URGENT

 

Hi Gents,

 

Bad news I am afraid. The insurance became due on 30 Apr 12. The paperwork was completed and sent to the brokers which was then sent on to the insurance company. We have temporary cover from the expiry of the of the old insurance up until the acceptance of our insurers subject to certain terms and conditions. Basically, on the renewal proposal it asks if there is anything pending that may have an effect on us being re-insured. Obviously at the time the paperwork was signed and sent in we declared that there was nothing pending. However, on renewal date (30 Apr 12) they were informed that we had discovered something. Rob Viney is certain that because this was declared before the renewal time (4pm on 30 Apr 12) we have insurance cover for this incident but he cannot guarantee it.

 

The really bad news is that as at today he cannot guarantee that we have insurance cover. The reason for this is that when the insurance company are fully briefed on the current circumstance they may refuse to cover us which means that the insurance lapsed at 4pm on 30 Apr 12 and from that time and date we are not covered. However, they may decide to renew in which case we are covered. It is up to you to decide the possibility of them agreeing to cover us.

 

Bottom line is that, as at today, it cannot be guaranteed that we have Directors liability insurance cover.

 

No doubt I will be hearing from a number of you very shortly.

 

Regards,

 

Steve”

 

And here now is the Minutes of the AGM... Is this an outright lie or are they just confused???

 

2. RA-Aus have previously faced difficulties in obtaining liability insurance cover for the Board

 

and the Staff. With the full knowledge of the previous difficulties, it is alleged the CEO

 

allowed the insurance cover to get within a few working days of expiry before submitting

 

the paperwork to the Broker for the renewal process. As might be expected it took around

 

a month for the insurance cover to be obtained. During that month, there were periods

 

when the cover was provided only by the good grace of the insurer and there were periods

 

when there was zero cover. It is further alleged that the lack of insurance and the potential

 

liability to Board members individually was a significant factor in the resignation of at least

 

one of the competent Board members and potentially a factor in the resignation of another.

 

Comment: I am not sure where Mr Isaac got his information from but it will be shown that much of

 

the information provided by Mr Isaac is wrong. Mr Isaac is correct that RA-Aus has and will

 

continue to face difficulties in obtaining insurance, it is the nature of our business. As I have

 

previously explained to the board, the CEO answered the renewal paperwork when it was received

 

from the insurance broker. There was a period of, from memory, 5 days lapse between receiving it

 

and answering it but this includes a weekend and the fact that the CEO was not in office for a

 

number of days. The CEO and Administration Manager have a meeting at least once a year with

 

our insurance broker to go through the insurance in detail. It was not the fact that the CEO had

 

made a mistake and had left it too late that the insurance company saw fit to provide a cover note.

 

The insurance company were considering our insurance in fine detail and while these

 

considerations were ongoing they provided cover for that period.

 

There was never a period when cover was not in place.

 

So... At the AGM the Board tells us "THERE WAS NEVER A PERIOD WHEN COVER WAS NOT IN PLACE"

 

Yet his own e-mail allegedly tells us that " the insurance lapsed at 4pm on 30 Apr 12 and from that time and date we are not covered...Bottom line is that, as at today, it cannot be guaranteed that we have Directors liability insurance cover."

 

 

[David Isaac]

The Executives' response to my questions on notice at the AGM was a total disrespectful whitewash in my opinion.

 

I am convinced the executive mislead the membership and I have held that view since their response to my questions. I too have seen the above email and can confirm it was from the then President Runciman, again in my opinion proof absolute that at the time he wrote that email there was no evidence of any active insurance cover; more importantly a clear suggestion that in fact there was NO Directors' Liability insurance.

 

Do we not think this might have contributed to the resignations of a NSW and Victorian Board member at that time? If I had been on the Board, I would have resigned on receipt of that email.

 

So, who is pulling whose tit here?????

 

 

[winsor68]

It is proof of an outright attempt to mislead the membership at the AGM...

 

 

[David Isaac]

BTW, if as the then President claims "......There was never a period when cover was not in place. ... " then how about producing the cover note as evidence of his statements.

 

 

[Powerin]

I agree it's a whitewash.

 

However when making accusations such as these it's important to read ALL that is written and not select the bits that appear to make your case.

 

It was said that the insurance lapsed ONLY if the company did not renew the policy. I assume the policy was renewed. Therefore, whitewash or not, with the benefit of hindsight, the president did not lie.

 

I would think in reality, as DBI alludes to in his question, if a big claim was made in those days of limbo the insurance company would have run a mile. But once the new policy came into force it would be on paper in black and white that RAAus was indeed covered for the period in question.

 

 

[Admin]

Hang on Guys...am I wrong or is there fraud here? The board was fully aware of the pending legal action by the wife of the sting accident yet in that email, Mr Steve Runciman says that they declared there was nothing pending:

 

"Basically, on the renewal proposal it asks if there is anything pending that may have an effect on us being re-insured. Obviously at the time the paperwork was signed and sent in we declared that there was nothing pending"

 

Is this fraud or am I wrong?

 

 

[sain]

It may have been previously declared. When did the legal action commence?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hang on Guys...am I wrong or is there fraud here? The board was fully aware of the pending legal action by the wife of the sting accident yet in that email, Mr Steve Runciman says that they declared there was nothing pending:"Basically, on the renewal proposal it asks if there is anything pending that may have an effect on us being re-insured. Obviously at the time the paperwork was signed and sent in we declared that there was nothing pending"

Is this fraud or am I wrong?

I believe that the claim "Nothing pending" is not an absolute statement, but rather a statement that covers the time from when the renewal documentation was submitted and the Insurance company advised acceptance. so "Nothing pending would be more accurately written as Nothing pending that we know of that has occured between Date X and now.

 

That was how it was described to us at the AGM by Mr Viney.....

 

The insurance company was then well aware of the Sting issue because we were told that the policy coverage had been exhausted by legal fees before we are even in court........If that isnt a clear indication that our insurnace arrangements are B/S then I ask what more someone needs? From this point on legal costs and any damages if awarded, will be bourne by member contributions through use of the reserves!

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

There has been a deafening silence on whether the Insurance referred to is Public Liability, Professional Indemnity, Directors and Officers or other.

 

This could be easily cleared up by:

 

• Stating the type of each Insurance that RAA holds, and the Claim limit. This is not a confidentiality issue because it should be made clear to all members, suppliers, customers etc. On many occasions in preparing public tenders I've been required to state the Manufacturers' coverages and never been refused.
   
   
  
• Sting in relation to the Sting crash which Insurance is being claimed against.
   
   
  

 

 

On the second point, if someone has claimed against Professional Indemnity Insurance, on what I would consider to be a routine Public Liability claim (their very basis relies on the fact that an owner, officer or employee has been negligent), then the question needs to be asked why, because yes, PI Insurance could easily be exhausted in this case, whereas I would Expect PL Insurance would be well within its limit for the whole case.

 

Something is not adding up here.

 

 

[David Isaac]

There has been a deafening silence on whether the Insurance referred to is Public Liability, Professional Indemnity, Directors and Officers or other.This could be easily cleared up by:

 

• Stating the type of each Insurance that RAA holds, and the Claim limit. This is not a confidentiality issue because it should be made clear to all members, suppliers, customers etc. On many occasions in preparing public tenders I've been required to state the Manufacturers' coverages and never been refused.
   
   
  
• Sting in relation to the Sting crash which Insurance is being claimed against.
   
   
  

 

 

On the second point, if someone has claimed against Professional Indemnity Insurance, on what I would consider to be a routine Public Liability claim (their very basis relies on the fact that an owner, officer or employee has been negligent), then the question needs to be asked why, because yes, PI Insurance could easily be exhausted in this case, whereas I would Expect PL Insurance would be well within its limit for the whole case.

 

Something is not adding up here.

I specifically asked for details on this in my 'questions on notice' to be answered at the AGM and the questions were ignored.

 

 

[Bandit12]

David, I make a point of ignoring at least one question you ask on this forum every day.....

 

Maybe I should join RA-Aus and run for the board. I could put my "ignoring" skills to good use there.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

I specifically asked for details on this in my 'questions on notice' to be answered at the AGM and the questions were ignored.

I'm beginning to get the horrible feeling that none of them understand what we are talking about. After all volunteers who get elected come from the general community.

 

 

[winsor68]

Regardless... It certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth... Maybe this is all a white wash... But this to me is the Crux of it.. It seems that there is some sort of break down here... I mean it is time to lay ALL the cards on the table... I have no doubt that the last 2 years have been hard on ALL Board Members... Factions may have been formed... It is time to move beyond that and face reality... HQ....based upon detailed discussion with people who claim to have seen "inside"... is a miss mash. It is certainly not the Office Staffs Fauilt... And the CEO says it is not his responsibility!!! But he has resigned... And Ra-Aus has no idea or plan on who or how to go about employing one because... like I said.... MISS MASH. Am I correct or not? Can anyone confirm that it is just work overload or do the office have to spend 2 weeks searching through all the BS to just employ someone??? What gives?

 

People are seriously worried about their livelihoods here.!!!

 

I may not be one of them but it has gone beyond a simple meeting in February and get it all sorted out type of deal to these people... Something needs to change...

 

It is certainly good to hear that there are members in Canberra helping sort the mess.... Either way the paperwork is going to have to be put in order at HQ... So you guys are true champions for helping get it ready.

 

 

[Captain]

It is certainly good to hear that there are members in Canberra helping sort the mess.... Either way the paperwork is going to have to be put in order at HQ... So you guys are true champions for helping get it ready.

It is worth restating here that if the RAA had been run well and efficiently for the ORDINARY MEMBERS by the PAID MANAGEMENT, and if the paid management had been efficiently administered by the EXECUTIVE to whom they report, and if the Executive had been overseen effectively by the BOARD, and if the members who had put themselves up for election to be part of the Board had stood tall and insisted on being a pro-active Board (or probably more correctly, if the Executive and their inner clique had allowed the Board to be Pro-Active) .............. then ORDINARY MEMBERS of good faith like dodo, who had been kept in the dark, or partially blind, or substantially ill-informed by the RAA Management, Executive and Board , wouldn't have had to volunteer their time to help sort out the mess.

 

How's that for going full circle?

 

Once/if it all gets sorted, just wait for the campaign of spin about what a great job the Executive have done to solve all these problems.

 

 

[winsor68]

Of course... Past behaviour is not at all forgiven... I hope not forgotten.

 

 

[facthunter]

Seige mentality. Questioners are the enemy. and there is less than half of them complaining. How to run a meeting. It's not rocket science. You lose the plot when you start to question an enquirer's financial status. To VOTE you have to be a financial member. No doubt about that. For a secret ballot you have a bit more preparation. These guys are by and large keen to get the job done, but have NEVER used the abilities out amongst the ranks as a resource. Nev

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

Provide undeniable proof that the email came from Steve Runciman. Otherwises it's just a rumor and quite possibly defamatory.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Publish the whole email Don. There is no arguable 'quality of confidence' about this email, to hide it from the members is deceptive behaviour and the members have a right to know.

 

I know the email was sent from SR to the Board I too have seen it, I just don't have a copy.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Provide undeniable proof that the email came from Steve Runciman. Otherwises it's just a rumor and quite possibly defamatory.

It may not make the ex-President look good but, being true, it cannot be defamatory.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Provide undeniable proof that the email came from Steve Runciman. Otherwises it's just a rumor and quite possibly defamatory.

I think you will find a current board member has already posted on here that the email was indeed sent and that a board meeting was held where it was decided to accept the withdrawal of the said resignation. Is he a liar and defamer too ?

 

.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think you will find a current board member has already posted on here that the email was indeed sent and that a board meeting was held where it was decided to accept the withdrawal of the said resignation. Is he a liar and defamer too ?.

Wrong email Gentreau, read above it is the email confirming the insurance debacle that we are referring to.

 

 

[Gentreau]

Wrong email Gentreau, read above it is the email confirming the insurance debacle that we are referring to.

Oops, senior moment there :)

 

.

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

It may not make the ex-President look good but, being true, it cannot be defamatory.

Prove that it's true

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

proof enough?

 

 

[turboplanner]

And what was the then President's formal response at the AGM?