← University
Board Disclosure Obligations and Institutional Concealment of Misconduct
0 of 6

A healthcare foundation headquartered in Bridgeport, Newfoundland and Labrador, maintained a comprehensive general liability policy from October 1980 through October 1985, with an endorsement extending bodily injury coverage to community outreach workers. The foundation's governance structure included an Insurance Committee comprising 4 lay insurance professionals and 2 of the 3 Board of Administration members.

As early as 1975, senior administrators including a Board member knew of sexual abuse allegations against at least 6 outreach workers. No disclosure was made to the insurer or child welfare authorities. When survivors' claims emerged decades later—eventually numbering in the hundreds—the insurer sought to void the policy for non-disclosure of material facts. The foundation's own expert conceded that a prudent underwriter, if informed, would not have issued the outreach worker endorsement. The question now facing the Board: what disclosure obligations did governance structures create, and what accountability flows from their failure?

Tracking the Diocese's Awareness of Priest Misconduct from 1975 to 1980

In the autumn of 1975, a regional children's aid organization headquartered in Corner Brook received its first formal complaint about a staff supervisor at one of its residential care facilities, an allegation that this individual had been systematically isolating vulnerable youth and subjecting them to physical discipline that far exceeded any authorized correction, leaving visible injuries that other staff had documented in incident reports but never escalated beyond the facility level. The organization's Board of Administration, which governed the non-profit's operations across western Newfoundland and Labrador, did not learn of this complaint through any formal disclosure channel because the facility director chose to address the matter internally, transferring the supervisor to a different program serving the same population and noting only in a confidential personnel file that a "management decision" had been made. This pattern of internal transfer rather than disclosure would repeat itself across the organization's network of facilities over the following 5 years, during which at least 6 staff members would be quietly reassigned following similar complaints, each reassignment documented somewhere in the organization's records but never surfaced to the Board's Insurance Committee, whose 4 lay insurance professionals and 2 of 3 Board of Administration members possessed precisely the expertise to recognize that these incidents constituted material risks requiring disclosure to the liability insurer. By October 1980, when the organization renewed its liability coverage for the policy period running through October 1985, the Insurance Committee certified to the liability insurer that it was unaware of any circumstances that might give rise to claims, a certification that would later prove catastrophic when hundreds of claimants came forward to allege abuse at the organization's facilities dating back to the very period when complaints had first begun accumulating in personnel files scattered across the organization's regional offices.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.