Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/6/2018 <br />LMCIT Liability Coverage Guide Page 7 <br />See Section II.D.3, <br />Purchasing higher liability <br />limits. <br />The cost of the excess liability coverage is higher if the city waives the <br />statutory tort caps. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the cost <br />difference at the primary level because for a city that carries excess coverage, <br />waiving the statutory tort caps increases both the per claimant exposure and <br />the per occurrence exposure. <br /> b. Not waiving the statutory limit <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />See Section II.D.3.a, <br />Statutory limits may not <br />apply. <br />For cities who choose not to waive the statutory limits, the city’s liability is <br />limited by the statute to no more than $500,000 per claimant and $1.5 million <br />per occurrence. LMCIT’s higher coverage limits would only come into play <br />on those types of claims that aren’t covered by the statutory limit. <br /> 3. Purchasing higher liability limits <br /> LMCIT makes available the option of carrying higher coverage limits than the <br />basic limit of $2 million per occurrence. This coverage, called excess liability <br />coverage, is available in $1 million increments up to a maximum of $5 <br />million. <br /> There are several different reasons why cities may consider carrying LMCIT’s <br />excess liability coverage. <br /> a. Statutory limits may not apply <br />Minn. Stat. § 3.736. <br /> The statutory tort caps either do not or may not apply to several types of <br />claims. Some examples include: <br /> • Claims under federal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the <br />Americans with Disabilities Act, and so on. <br />• Claims for tort liability the city has assumed by contract. This occurs <br />when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. <br />• Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that <br />have mutual aid agreements with adjoining states or when a city official <br />attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby. <br />• Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal <br />liquor stores, but it could also arise relating to beer sales at a fire relief <br />association fundraiser, for example. <br />• Claims based on a “taking” theory. Suits challenging land use regulations <br />frequently include an “inverse condemnation” claim, alleging the <br />regulation amounts to a “taking” of the property.