blondie, the disaster relief situation is a bit different, because accounting laws basically require them to spend money on what it is donated for. So if someone writes "for Katrina" or "disaster relief" on the memo line of their $15 check to the Society, the Society has to spend that $15 on that specific purpose. This is a problem because if they get more money designated for a certain cause than what they can reasonably spend on that cause, they end up with untouchable money sitting in their bank. Of course the less gracious take on things is that the Society doesn't want to spend as much on disaster relief as they could, and would like to re-purpose most of that money. In either case, converting money designated for disaster relief into general income by rebuilding homes and then having the insurance payout for the home damage granted to them by the home owner is pretty damn clever.
Anyway, Ginx, I think you see that one way or another the Society has to be paying for the settlements, whether through "allegation insurance" or simply paying it all out themselves. It doesn't matter if they have an account set aside as "sex abuse insurance" on the books. The only way that they are not spending any donations from Witnesses on sex abuse settlements is if they have an account set aside and only money gleaned from investments and real estate goes into that bucket. Even in the case of real estate sales, those profits are only made possible in large part by the free labor the brothers and sisters supply in having remodeled and maintained the buildings they are selling. However, I think it is unlikely that the Society would see any reason or have any legal requirement to maintain a distinct revenue stream for settling lawsuits.
This leaves the other possible responses by a believing JW, which are that (a) the stories are phony, planted by apostates to make JWs doubt, or (b) the allegations are false but it's safer to settle than to leave it to the courts of Satan's world to decide a verdict, or even (c) they're true but the perpetrator was never really a JW, or else they were but they went apostate before they molested the child. This last point is sort of a meaningless red herring, but Witnesses will mentally squirm out of things any way they can if they don't want to accept something.