Laserfiche WebLink
See Section II.D.3, The cost of the excess liability coverage is about 25 percent greater if the city <br /> Purchasing higher liability <br /> limits. waives the statutory tort caps. The cost difference is proportionally greater <br /> than the cost difference at the primary level because for a city that carries <br /> excess coverage,waiving the statutory tort caps increases both the per <br /> claimant exposure and the per occurrence exposure. <br /> b. Not waiving the statutory limit <br /> For cities that choose not to waive the statutory limits,the city's liability is <br /> limited by the statute to no more than$500,000 per claimant and$1.5 million <br /> See Section II.D.3.a, per occurrence. LMCIT's higher coverage limits would only come into play <br /> Statutory limits may not <br /> apply. on those types of claims that aren't covered by the statutory limit. <br /> 3. Purchasing higher liability limits <br /> LMCIT makes available the option of carrying higher coverage limits than the <br /> basic limit of$2 million per occurrence. This coverage, called excess liability <br /> coverage, is available in $1 million increments up to a maximum of$5 <br /> million. <br /> There are several different reasons why cities should strongly consider <br /> carrying LMCIT's excess liability coverage. <br /> a. Statutory limits may not apply <br /> Minn.Stat.§3.736. The statutory tort caps either do not or may not apply to several types of <br /> claims. Some examples include: <br /> • Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983,the <br /> Americans with Disabilities Act, and so on. <br /> • Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs <br /> when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. <br /> • Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that <br /> have mutual aid agreements with adjoining states or when a city official <br /> attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby. <br /> • Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal <br /> liquor stores,but it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire <br /> relief association fundraiser, for example. <br /> • Claims based on a "taking"theory. Suits challenging land use regulations <br /> frequently include an"inverse condemnation"claim, alleging that the <br /> regulation amounts to a"taking"of the property. <br /> 61 <br />