Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmemher Dehen pointed out there are only three license holders that would likely attend <br />the public hearing to oppose the increase in requirements, as the rest of the license holders are <br />above the $250,000 or $300,000 that the requirements would likely be increased to. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen noted raising the requirements and holding the public hearing could <br />have the opposite of the desired effect. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated if the insurance coverage is for liability that not only relates to <br />alcohol he cannot imagine anyone running a retail business having under $1,000,000 in <br />coverage. <br /> <br />City Clerk Thieling indicated some of the policies specify what the liquor liability is and some <br />say the liquor liability is included. There are very few insurance companies that deal with liquor <br />licenses. The certificates submitted to the City prove that the businesses are covered. It is <br />difficult to get an exact answer on costs,' as the formula varies based on sales. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look questioned if $300,000 in coverage is light when looking at a possible <br />lawsuit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated the theory is that the person entitled to sue a liquor store is any . <br />person that is not involved in that particular transaction. Ifhe were to be involved in an accident <br />his wife and children would be allowed to sue the liquor store for his drinking, but he could not; <br />the wife and kids are considered innocent under the dram shop laws. The second scenario is if <br />he is obviously intoxicated, causes and accident and dies. His wife and kids could still sue that <br />dram shop and the people that were hurt in the accident could sue the dram shop as well. That is <br />. , <br />where the aggregate comes in. It is not a lot of insurance, and in that scenario there are.a lot of <br />people that are simply under-compensated, so $300,000 or $250,000 is not much. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look commented that Spectators' coverage is very low, but from a City <br />standpoint his question is why they would just not require what the State minimums are. If the <br />coverage is at $50,000 and these people are harmed beyond that, they can probably sue civilly or <br />follow some other method. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated the dram shop insurance laws were written for two reasons; to <br />punish bars and dram shops for illegally serving people, and also to cover the innocent people <br />that are injured. The question is if the City wants to be sure that people have more than the <br />minimum in this type of situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated it is clear that the State does not have their eye on the ball, but he <br />would not say for Mansetti' s, Spectators or Diamonds to increase the coverage would cost them <br />much more. He would like the businesses to take the initiative and go out and get $1,000,000 to <br />$2,000,000 in coverage and realize the risks they are putting themselves into. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / September 11, 2007 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />