My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.3. SR 01-09-2006
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2006
>
01/09/2006
>
5.3. SR 01-09-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:42 AM
Creation date
1/6/2006 9:31:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
1/9/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
<br />If the statute limits our liability to $1,000,000 per occurrence, why would the city purchase <br />higher coverage limits than that? <br /> <br />There are several different reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying higher limits of <br />liability coverage. <br />/~'\ <br />if V The statutory tort limits either do not or may not apply to several types of claims. Some <br />'.../ <br />examples include: <br /> <br />. Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with <br />Disabilities Act, etc. <br /> <br />. Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city <br />agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. <br /> <br />. Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual <br />aid agreements with adjoining states, or when a city official attends a national conference <br />or goes to Washington to lobby, etc. <br /> <br />. Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but <br />it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for <br />example. <br /> <br />. Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently <br />include an "inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a <br />"taking" of the property. <br /> <br />2. LMCIT's primary liability coverage has annual limits on coverage for a few specific <br />risks. The table on page 1 lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. <br />If the city has a loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits <br />remaining to cover the city's full exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the <br />year. Excess liability coverage gives the city additional protection against this risk as well. <br /> <br />However there are a couple of important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to <br />risks that are subject to aggregate limits: <br /> <br />. The excess coverage does not apply to four risks: lead and asbestos;failure to supply <br />utilities; mold; and "limited pollution" claims if either the pollutant release or the <br />damage is below ground or in a body of water; and <br /> <br />. The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city <br />specifically requests it. <br /> <br />3. The city may be required by contract to carry higher coverage limits. Occasionally, a <br />contract might include a requirement that the city carry more than $1,000,000 of coverage <br />limits. Carrying excess coverage is a way to meet these requirements. (There's also another <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.