My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 04-08-1996
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCP 04-08-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:47 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:11:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
<br /> . 1 <br /> Waiving tlte statutory limits I <br /> .. <br /> There is another issue cities need to consider. Some cities may feel that the statutory limits are <br /> not high enough to provide adequate compensation for very serious injuries, or for multiple <br /> parties. That is, the city might in effect say "We want to have at least $1 million (or $.J million I <br /> or $5 million, etc.) of coverage available, so that if we injure someone he won't go <br /> uncompensated ifhis injuries really do exceed the statutory limits." <br /> LMCIT's standard excess liability coverage is structured so that the statutory liability limits I <br /> remain in effect for those claims to which they apply. However, LMClT also gives the city the <br /> option, for an additional premium, to waive the statutory liability limits to the extent of the city's I <br /> excess coverage limits. 1bis "waiver" option would make more funds available to an injured <br /> party on a claim where the statutory liability limits would otherwise limit the amoullMhe <br /> claimant could recover. I <br /> Buying higher liability coverage limits gives the city better protection against the risks it faces. <br /> It's important to understand, though, that buying the more expensive "waiver" option doesn't give I <br /> the city any better protection than tlle "non-waiver" option provides; ratller, it gives the person <br /> the city injures better protection by allowing him to recover more than he would otherwise be <br /> able to from the city. I <br /> There's no simple "right" answer to the question of whether your city should buy excess liability .. <br /> coverage limits, and if so whether to do so under the "waiver" or the "non-waiver" option. These <br /> are discretionary decisions that only the council can decide. The council must determine whether <br /> the added protections (for the city and for the party the city might injure, respectively) are worth I <br /> that additional expenditure of city funds. <br /> Wfzat does tlte city need to do? I <br /> Every city should periodically review the question of whether to carry excess liability limits, and I <br /> if so whether to waive the statutory liability limits. LMCIT quotes for excess coverage show the <br /> premiums for both options. The decision to waive or not to waive tlle statutory limits must be <br /> made by motion or resolution of the city council. A form to show the council's choice is I <br /> enclosed with each quotc. That form must be completed and returned to LMClT. If the city <br /> indicates that it wishes to waive the liability limits, LMCIT issues a special endorsement as part <br /> of the coverage document showing that the statutory liability limits are waived to the extent of I <br /> the coverage purchased. <br /> PST - 11ll/95 I <br /> . <br /> I <br /> .. <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.