My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 12/10/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2013
>
Agenda - Council - 12/10/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 9:41:17 AM
Creation date
12/11/2013 10:22:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
12/10/2013
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1207
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
If the Statute Limits our Liability, Why Purchase Higher Coverage Limits? <br />There are several different reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying higher limits of <br />liability coverage. <br />The Statutory Tort Limits Either Do Not or May Not Apply to Several Types of Claims <br />Some examples include: <br />• Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with <br />Disabilities Act, etc. <br />• Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees in a <br />contract to defend and indemnify a private party. <br />• Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid <br />agreements with adjoining states, or when a city official attends a national conference or goes to <br />Washington to lobby, etc. <br />• Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it could <br />also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for example. <br />• Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include an <br />"inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a "taking" of the property. <br />LMCIT's Primary Liability Coverage has Annual Limits on Coverage for a few Specific Risks <br />The table on page one lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. If the city has <br />a loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits remaining to cover the city's <br />full exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the year. Excess liability coverage gives <br />the city additional protection against this risk as well. <br />However, there are a couple important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to risks that <br />are subject to aggregate limits: <br />• The excess coverage does not apply to three risks: failure to supply utilities; mold; and "limited <br />pollution" claims if either the pollutant release or the damage is below ground or in a body of <br />water; and <br />• The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city specifically <br />requests it. <br />The City may be Required by Contract to Carry Higher Coverage Limits <br />Occasionally, a contract might include a requirement the city carry more than $1,500,000 of coverage <br />limits. Carrying excess coverage is a way to meet these requirements. (There's also another option <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.