2005-09-14 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG-29-2005 15:38 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 6512811296 P.02 "'V\:)~UN I ROt LOSS CONTROL QUARTERLY " ...t........J.. I",eag.~e of Minnesota Citil~~ Summer 1990 No.9 A publication of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust How to Limit Liability for Private Docks Attached to City Property by Ellen Longfellow, LMCIT Staff Attonley, and Rich Korman, LMCIT Research Assistant :.....:'....\ . , In 1983, ,1 young man became a quadriplegic after diving head fir~t into t.he \\';It.pr~ of a lakp nf[ of a privately own0d dock attached to city property. This dock was constructed, installed, and ln8intained by 8 private party, but the city 8pproved its placement. The city did not install warning signs nor require thl' dock owner to do so. The young man sued the city and the dock owner for negligence. The court deter- mined that it is the city's ancl not the clock owner's respon;;ibility to safe- r;uard such a dock. This case illustrates why a city shoukl ('s'lablish :m agreement or per- mit system if it allows private docks to be attached to city property. The per.. mit t-iystt-'m should he t-'stal.Jlished by ordinance and require the city council to give perrnis"jon. This will help pro- vide a basis for a discretionary immu- nity defense because the decision occurred at " policy \evel. An agreement or permit should pri- m<lrily :ictdre% li,lbility ;Hld ~hould include the follo\viTlg issues. I. The agreement should require the individual (dock owner) to defend and indemnify the city for claims arising out of the exist- ence of the do(:k, lhe individual is ymintaining the dock. Therefore, the cit y should not be responsible for the risks involved. 2. The individual ~hou]d carry ade- quate insunmce. An agreement to defend and indclluIUy the city is useful, however, it does not do any gooJ if the illlliviJual\; assets do not cover defense and judgment costs. Hequiring insurance secures the avaihlbility of neceSS<lry funds. Also. if tbe individual has adequate insur. 8nce, an injured party may be less likely to bring a claim again~t thp city. On the nther hand, if the individual does not have adequate assets or insurance, the injured pillty is likely to look f(lr (l "deep [locket" to p:ly damages. 3. The individual should name the city as an "additional insured" on the insurance policy relating to the dock. 'fhis way, if someone makes a claim against the city. the city can forward it to the dock owner's insurance company. It will then be that insurance comp,my' s responsibility to defend the city (lnd pay any judgment (lw(lrds. 4. The individual should main- tain the dock to certain specifications. :J. The individual ~hlluld install warning signs such as I'no div- ing" and "no swimming." By giving permission 10 build a dock, the city will c1ariiy that the property See' 'J)()cks" pilge> ,'3 Federal Law Reduces Disaster Assistance to Cities ^ little known provision of the Staf- ford Act, an amendment. to P. L. 93- 288, hCiS made many changes l() the delivery of jed(~J'al disaster assistance. One provisioll reduces disaster assist- ance for the repair of public buildings damaged by flood w,lters when the buildings do not have adequate fiood insurance. When the President makes " major disaster rlf'claratioll, local government may be eligible for 75 percent federal reimbursement for the repair of pub- licly owned facilities through the public assistance progrmn. From now on, public assistance funding for repfiir ()f damage to insul-ahle publicly owned buildings in Spe(:iCi! l100d hazard areas will decrease by the amoLlnt of flood insllr;Jm:(~ proceeds they would have received, whether the building was insured or not. For example, if the flood damage to an uninsured city hall in a spe(~iaJ tlood hCizard area tot;ds $500,000, the amount of federal funds available for repair will decrease by $20Q,000-the maximum amount of flood insurance available. The standard 7S/25 percent cost shaling applies to the remaining $30(l,OOO in dam3g~. If the damage to the same city hall totals 8100,000. public ussistCince funds would not be available hecallse a Dood policy would have (ully covered the damage. If communities d(l not obtain ade- quate flood insurance, I he additional costs to the community Carl be substan- tial. The bulk of public a~sistancc fund- ing is for d<im:1ge to uninsurable slructure::-; such as roads and bridges. Funding for the repair of these dilm- ages is unaffecled by the new law. Cities should be able to get informil- tion on flood insurance from their city insurance agents. 31 ~------- ------