Questions frequently arise about whether these not-for-profit organizations—some of which are part of a national association (like the Scouts), and some of which are more loosely organized (like sports boosters)—should have to add the owners of facilities as additional insureds on a liability policy. I've been on both sides of that fence.

As an insurance professional I have recommended that building owners always require evidence of CGL insurance and additional-insured status from all facility users, temporary and otherwise and regardless of amount of rent. As a member of civic organizations, I have grappled with how the groups can afford the liability-insurance premium and possible additional premium for adding an additional insured.

I've been trained to think of the worst-case scenario, when a serious injury or damage is caused by something the temporary occupant does. What if the local civic association inadvertently blocks a fire exit with its fund-raising display, and people are injured because they cannot exit the facility?

I believe two things: Serious injuries or damage may be rare, but they do occur; and claims are likely to be filed against every conceivable party when such losses happen. This is the business we're in, and all of us have seen both. Although I empathize with civic groups that think they cannot afford to pay for liability insurance and additional-insured endorsements, we must be realists and understand that having the appropriate coverage and additional-insured provision is necessary.

I'm not sure that the owners of facilities can afford not to require additional-insured status from every organization that uses their facilities. Do you think not-for-profit groups should be forced to provide additional-insured coverage, or are there situations when it isn't necessary?