Understanding that a master insurance programme covering thousands of Rotary entities requires information from individual clubs requires gathering information about those entities. 

Why, however, are volunteer office holders, many of whom serve for only a year, expected to understand the insurance implications of every answer they provide?

This question addresses a key and important issue of responsibilities.

First, the declarations on the master policies are made by the insurance team.  The member of the insurance team declared personally and has the ultimate responsibility as an officer of the Rotary International Zone 8 Insurance and Protection Committee (ZIPC).

Acting as an officer, the principal officer (usually the  Chair of ZIPC) is covered under the Management Liability for errors and omissions in carrying that duty to declare.

That officer is required to ensure that "due enquiry" is made.  Obviously the Chair of ZIPC needs to make those enquiries to provide that declaration on the master policies.  The 'infosheets' are NOT proposals.  The  Chair of ZIPC completes the actual renewal proposal based on a document that is prepared by the insurance team, which is very technical and usually runs to over 60 pages.  The infosheets function is provide the insurance team with information, not make a proposal.  This is a key difference in role and responsibility.  Simply the buck stops with the ZIPC team.

There are two points to cover from here:

1. first, if the infosheet is misleading or fraudulent then the issue will be did that fraud or misleading conduct prejudice the insurer?  If the insurer argued that in the context of a master policy covering hundreds of entities the misleading statements or fraud would have to affect the total cover.  This is given the Rotary Code of Conduct and policies very unlikely. If a crime for example was committed then the question is would the Club be covered? Answer = Yes - there is Crimes coverage 
2. secondly, would that affect Rotary International, the other Rotary entities or even the declaring Club and its office providing the information - possibly but more likely would be a risk management response.  The insurer may require conditions on renewal or if there is systemic fraud could refuse renewal.

The current process seems to assume that the person completing the form has sufficient knowledge to identify and assess insurance-related risks.

This is not what is being asked.  What is being asked is:

1. to provide the information requested
2. to provide, as in any insurance contract, advice of circumstances that might give rise to a claim - this is a subjective request and if there is no knowledge of such circumstances then there is no information that meets that threshold
3. if in doubt the declaring Club officer can document any concerns on the record via a Helpdesk ticket.