11-26-2018 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 2/13/2017 LMCIT Liability Coverage Guide Page 7 The statutory limit of $1.5 million divided 50 ways may not go far in compensating those injuries. Excess coverage under the waiver option makes more funds available to compensate the victims in this kind of situation. See Section II.D.3, Purchasing higher liability limits. The cost of the excess liability coverage is about 25 percent greater if the city waives the statutory tort caps. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the cost difference at the primary level because for a city that carries excess coverage, waiving the statutory tort caps increases both the per claimant exposure and the per occurrence exposure. b. Not waiving the statutory limit See Section II.D.3.a, Statutory limits may not apply. For cities who choose not to waive the statutory limits, the city’s liability is limited by the statute to no more than $500,000 per claimant and $1.5 million per occurrence. LMCIT’s higher coverage limits would only come into play on those types of claims that aren’t covered by the statutory limit. 3.Purchasing higher liability limits LMCIT makes available the option of carrying higher coverage limits than the basic limit of $2 million per occurrence. This coverage, called excess liability coverage, is available in $1 million increments up to a maximum of $5 million. There are several different reasons why cities may consider carrying LMCIT’s excess liability coverage. a.Statutory limits may not apply Minn. Stat. § 3.736. The statutory tort caps either do not or may not apply to several types of claims. Some examples include: •Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and so on. •Claims for tort liability the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. •Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid agreements with adjoining states or when a city official attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby. •Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fundraiser, for example. •Claims based on a “taking” theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include an “inverse condemnation” claim, alleging the regulation amounts to a “taking” of the property.