2007-01-10 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

clearly more focused on benefiting the individual, rather than the city; and many have all of these purposes in varying combinations. The city council might not have a clear idea of what activities the outside organization is engaged in, or even that the employee is involved in such an organization. At the same time though, most cities also won't want to just leave their employee hanging on hislher own if slhe is being sued; and that may lead the city after the fact to take an expansive view of what's part of the employee's duties. · These organizations may be involved in any of a wide range of activities with significant potential for generating liability claims: holding conventions; conducting training; fund- raising activities; promulgating standards; advising, consulting, or making recommendations to members or cities; "certifying" individuals or departments or cities; censuring individuals for code of conduct violations; and so on. From LMCIT's standpoint, the concern is that we have no opportunity to be aware of the activities of these organizations, to evaluate those risks of those activities, or to provide risk management assistance to control and minimize those risks. Essentially, it can put LMCIT in the position of being the "insurer by default" of risks that we don't know about and don't have any opportunity to control. · There's a potential for catastrophically expensive claim costs. Employees from many different cities might be involved in the same organization, and could be sued in a single incident. That in turn could mean that there's a claim under each of five or ten (or twenty or fifty) cities' LMCIT liability coverages. Under the current coverage, LMCIT could be responsible for up to $1 million of damages (or more if the city has excess coverage) for each of the cities. In total, that could add up to an enormous cost. It can be even worse if the claims arise from a dispute among the individuals participating in the organization; LMCIT could literally end up paying for both sides who are suing each other. How is LMCIT addressing this issue? In addressing this issue, the LMCIT Board tried to find a balance between several somewhat conflicting goals: providing the broadest possible coverage to meet cities' risk management and coverage needs; protecting LMCIT members' funds by controlling the risk of very large loss costs that could result from these types of claims; and providing some certainty as to when these types of claims are covered and when they are not. The changes make it entirely the city's call as to whether or not an employee's activities in any outside organization are considered to be within the scope of the employee's city duties. That eliminates any potential factual disputes about whether on not coverage applies. The city can make that determination at any time, either in advance or after a claim has already occurred. The $100,000 limit greatly reduces the potential for catastrophically large loss costs to LMCIT. At the same time, it provides some safety net protection that should be enough to address many of the "surprise" situations that might come up. What kinds of outside organizations does this affect? Here's the definition of the "outside organizations" that are affected: 2