My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2.4. ERMUSR 05-10-2016
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2014-2024
>
2016
>
05-10-2016
>
2.4. ERMUSR 05-10-2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2016 9:13:31 AM
Creation date
5/10/2016 9:13:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
5/10/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Personal injury. This could leave the city with no coverage for a <br /> defamation claim relating to the airport operations. For example, if an <br /> airport board member or employee made a critical comment about a <br /> contract service provider, the individual could be sued for defamation. <br /> • Products/completed operations. If the city sells fuel,this could be a <br /> problem. Imagine a crash caused by contaminated fuel or even a <br /> contaminated sandwich in a vending machine. <br /> • Noise and interference. There are common exclusions for noise, <br /> interference with the use of property, or electromagnetic interference. A <br /> city airport might very well face these kinds of claims, especially if there <br /> are residences or businesses near the airport. Even a successful defense <br /> could be expensive. <br /> • Medical malpractice. This exclusion is often worded so it applies to any <br /> medical treatment,not just treatment provided by medical personnel. It <br /> could leave an airport employee without coverage if she or he provides <br /> CPR or other first aid in an emergency and a liability claim results. The <br /> Good Samaritan law may ultimately provide protection,but defense costs <br /> could still be significant. <br /> • Malicious act or act of sabotage. Suppose vandals damage runway lights <br /> or beacons, or place an obstruction on a runway. This exclusion would <br /> leave the city airport without coverage. <br /> • Damages arising out of an air traffic control facility. This exclusion is <br /> sometimes written so it applies even if it isn't the city's air traffic control <br /> facility. If an accident were caused by an air traffic control problem, the <br /> city airport could be named in the lawsuit. The city's defense would be to <br /> show the problem was caused by the air traffic controller and not by the <br /> city. This would also require proof that the coverage doesn't apply. <br /> • Combined claims. Normally the rule is that if a lawsuit involves a <br /> combination of covered and non-covered claims, the insurer must defend <br /> the entire suit. Some provisions say that in a"combined claim,"the <br /> insurer will only reimburse the insured for that portion of the defense costs <br /> which the city proves can be attributed to a covered claim. This effectively <br /> eliminates the"benefit of the doubt"which the insured normally gets on <br /> coverage issues. In some cases, it could be very expensive. <br /> • Airmeets. Most policies have this exclusion in one form or another. <br /> Sometimes it's worded so broadly that the exclusion would apply to a <br /> simple"fly-in"type event that doesn't involve any racing or stunting. <br /> B. Data security breach and computer-related risks <br /> LMCIT information memo, Computers at city hall and in city offices can be bombarded with viruses on a <br /> Computer and Network <br /> Loss Controlregular basis, and may even be subject to hacker attacks or cybercrime. This <br /> might impact city systems like email, and could also affect computerized <br /> billing or records management systems. <br /> 66 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.