Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

January 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I No. 1 Zoning Bulletin The County had a Public Entity Multi -Lines Insurance Policy (the "Pol- icy") with Idaho Counties Risk Management Program ( "ICRMP "). The County asked ICRMP to defend it in this FHA litigation. ICRMP refused because ICRMP determined that Alamar's claims were beyond the scope of the Policy's coverage. Under the "errors and omissions section" of the Policy, excluded from coverage were any claims of liability arising out of or in any way connected to "land use regulation or planning and zoning activities or proceedings, however characterized." The County filed a legal action against ICRMP. It asked the court to de- clare that ICRMP had a duty to defend and indemnify the County against Alamar's claims. The County contended that the coverage exclusion did not apply to civil rights claims, and that because the FHA claims against it were civil rights claims, they should be covered. The district court concluded that Alamar's claims arose from or were connected with planning and zoning or land use decisions. It also found that- Alamar had alleged intentional misconduct. The court determined that the Policy expressly excluded coverage from both of those types of claims. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and decid- ing the matter on the law alone, the court issued summary judgment in favor of ICRMP. The County appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of Idaho found that Alamar's claims did indeed arise out of, or were connected with, the County land use regulations. Ala- mar had alleged that decisions made by the County's Planning and Zon- ing Commission and the County Board of Commissioners on its land use application constituted violations of the FHA. While those claims could be categorized as civil rights claims, they obviously arose out of "land use or planning and zoning," and thus were explicitly excluded from coverage under the Policy. The court concluded, holding that ICRMP had no duty to defend the County in the FHA action brought by Alamar against the County. See also: Hoyle u Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 137 Idaho 367, 4813d 1256 (2002). Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA Sacramento County supervisors recently voted "to clarify" their exist- ing ordinance because it "didn't address marijuana dispensaries." The new zoning amendment denies business permits to establishments that conflict with "either state or federal law, or both." Reportedly, the new amendment "effectively bans both marijuana stores and cultivation in the county." Source: The Sacramento Bee; via ht 10 © 2012 Thomson Reuters