My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.1. SR 10-20-2008
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2008
>
10-20-2008
>
7.1. SR 10-20-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2008 3:32:37 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 3:32:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/20/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
apiece -annoying but probably at least manageable for most taxpayers. $1 million divided among <br />200 taxpayers is $5000 apiece -enough to be a real problem for many. <br />LMCIT now gives the cities who participate in the primary liability coverage the <br />option to waive the $400,000 per claimant statutory liability limit. What's the effect <br />if we do this? <br />If the city chooses the "waiver" option, the city and LMCIT no longer can use the statutory limit of <br />$400,000 per claimant as a defense. Because the waiver increases the exposure, the premium is <br />roughly 3% higher for coverage under the waiver option. <br />If the city waives the statutory limit, an individual claimant could therefore recover up to $1,200,000 <br />in damages on a claim. Of course, the individual would still have to prove to the court or jury that <br />s/he really does have that amount of damages. Also, the statutory limit of $1,200,000 per occurrence <br />would still apply; that would limit the individual's recovery to a lesser amount if there were multiple <br />claimants. <br />Why would the city choose to pay more in order to get the waiver-option coverage? <br />Does it give the city better protection? <br />No. Buying coverage under the "waiver" option doesn't protect the city any better. The benefit is to <br />the injured party. <br />The statutory liability limit only comes into play in a case where <br />1. the city is in fact liable; and <br />2. the injured party's actual proven damages are greater than the statutory limit. <br />Very literally, applying the statutory liability limit means that an injured party won't be fully <br />compensated for his/her actual, proven damages that were caused by city negligence. Some cities as <br />a matter of public policy may want to have more assets available to compensate their citizens for <br />injuries caused by the city's negligence. Waiving the statutory liability limits is a way to do that. <br />Other cities may feel that the appropriate policy is to minimize the expenditure of the taxpayers' <br />funds by taking full advantage of every protection the legislature has decided to provide. There's no <br />right or wrong answer on this point. It's a discretionary question of city policy that each city council <br />needs to decide for itself. <br />How would the waiver affect our city's coverage or risk on those claims that the <br />statutory tort liability limits don't apply to? <br />It doesn't. Waiving the statutory tort limits has no effect on claims that the statutory limits don't <br />apply to. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.