Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colstrip board adopts therapy-animal policy requiring $1,000,000 liability and district naming on insurance
Summary
Board approved Policy 84.26F on the use of therapy animals in schools and directed staff to add requirements that handlers provide a $1,000,000 liability certificate and name the district as additional insured on facility-use forms and the policy.
The Colstrip Public Schools Board of Trustees approved a revision to its therapy-animal policy (Policy 84.26F), adding clearer insurance and indemnification requirements for handlers of therapy animals on district property.
Staff reviewed model language and reported that the facility-use form already includes a requirement for a certificate of insurance showing comprehensive general liability coverage of at least $1,000,000. Meeting discussion clarified that the district’s insurance advisor advised requiring the handler’s liability policy to name the district as an additional insured to provide coverage for third-party claims; workers’ compensation exposures would remain separate.
Trustees directed staff to add two paragraphs to the policy and to the facility-use form to require proof of insurance, naming Colstrip Public Schools as an additional insured where feasible, and to include indemnification language covering the district. A motion to add the language to both the policy and the form passed on second and final reading.
Why it matters: The new language standardizes insurance expectations for external handlers bringing therapy animals into district schools and reduces the district’s exposure to uncovered third-party claims. The policy does not remove the district’s workers’ compensation obligations, which remain in force if an employee is injured.
Details recorded in meeting: Staff reported that some districts leave model policy language broad, but the Colstrip staff recommended adding explicit additional-insured language to both the facility-use agreement and the policy. The meeting record identified a $1,000,000 minimum comprehensive general-liability requirement for facility use certificates and discussed adding indemnification clauses to policy text as appropriate.
Next step: Staff to update the policy text and the facility-use form to reflect the additional‑insured and indemnity language and return the revised documents to the board as required.
