2003_0630_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

covered by work comp, and the amounts the driver might recover under UMUIM would be in addition to the medical, indemnity, and other benefits under work comp. In many cases that will result in a double recovery, and it paeans that an employee 0 ' Mi ured in a car accident would be getting a better deal than an employee injured in a different type of on -duty accident. We think it makes sense for most cities to carry only the minimum $50,000 LTMIM limit required by statute. If the city is carrying a S 1 million for UNVUIM, the savings from reducing the limit is about 10 per vehicle. If the city also has excess coverage and chosen to have the excess also apply to LTNVUEM, the savings from dropping that coverage from the excess would be ium about 5% of the underlying liability prem. 2. Drop the medical payments coverage. The ``medical paymentsr coverage (Coverage B of the LM IT liability coverage) provides a limited amount ($1000) of no-fault coverage for medical treatment for those injured on city property because of a condition in the property. The medical payments coverage really only comes into play in situations where the city is not legally liable for the Maury. (If the city is legally liable for the Miury, it will be covered as a liability claim. In many cases, the medical payments coverage is really just paying costs that would otherwise be covered by the individual ' s own health insur'ancc or by Medicare. Deleting the medical payments coverage will reduce premiums 1%. 3. Retain more risk A surprising number of cities still have property /casualty deductibles as low as 50 or $500. For most cities, a deductible of at least $1000, $2500, or $5000 will make more sense economically. Cities should consider the medical deductible options on work comp as well, While there are obviously no guarantees, the premium savings over time should normally be more d= enaugh to cover the additional risk the city is reudning. Of course, the city needs to make sure that reserve funds are available to cover a reasonable number of deductibles during the gear. For mid -sib and larger cities* an aggregate deductible approach ofn makes a lot of sense for the property /casualty coverage. Under this approach, the city retains a substantial deductible, but the city" s maximum cost per year is capped at a specific dollar amount. (E.g., the city is responsible for the first $1 0,000 of each loss, but for no more than a maximum of $20,000 for the year. A much smaller ``maintenance" deductible then applies to subsequent claims.) This gives the city a way to reduce prexnnums significantly by retaining a substantial amount of risk, but the maximum amount of risk the city retains is a known amount that can be planned for and budgeted* The `�retro -rati g" option offers a smear alternative on work comp, for cities with standard premiums of $25,000 or snore. , 4. Don !t waive the statutory liability limits. L.1IT gives the city the option of whether or not to waive the statutory liability limits. Liability coverage is more expensive if the eity waives the limits; the cost diff-erence is 3.5 %. Waiving the limits does not give the city any better protection; the benefit is to the party who is making a liability 4