CC_Minutes_2012_0312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ly 3. It must not be one of the areas in which the city is immune from liability. When the city reports a liability claim to LMCIT then,the key issue for LMCIT's claims staff is whether the city is legally liable for the damages that are being claimed. Sometimes it's very clear from the facts the city is liable. In such cases,the adjuster's job is to pay the claimant a fair settlement of the damages as quickly as possible. In other cases, it may be very clear the city is not liable, in which case the adjuster will deny liability and decline to offer any settlement. In many cases though, it may not be obvious whether the city is liable. The facts may be unclear or disputed; it may be debatable whether or not the city acted negligently; other parties' negligence (including the claimant's)may be involved;there may be questions about what really caused the damages; and so on. It's harder to generalize about these cases. Depending on the particular facts and circumstances and how likely it seems the city will ultimately be held liable, LMCIT's claims staff may or may not attempt to negotiate a compromise settlement in these kinds of cases. Ultimately, of course, evaluating and deciding on liability is what the court system is for. If a claimant disagrees with LMCIT's denial of a claim,the claimant can bring the issue to the courts. If that happens, it's LMCIT's responsibility to pay for the cost of defense and to pay the damages the court awards against the city. Legally,the burden is on the person making the claim to prove the defendant is liable. In other words, it's the claimant's responsibility to show the city is liable—not the city's responsibility to show the city isn't liable. That doesn't mean LMCIT's adjusters will simply sit back and do nothing,waiting for the claimant to assemble and present the evidence. The LMCIT adjuster's job is to investigate the claim, collect the relevant facts and information,and make a reasonable evaluation of whether the city is liable. It does mean,though, that if the investigation doesn't produce good evidence to show the city is liable,LMCIT's position will be to deny city liability. Keep in mind too that when LMCIT denies liability on a claim, it shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as saying the damage is the claimant's own fault. Why does LMCIT stick to a legal liability standard in deciding whether or not to pay a liability claim? No one—neither city officials,nor LMCIT staff—enjoys telling a citizen the city is not responsible for their damages because their problem was not caused by city negligence. But if we apply the standard of legal liability, sometimes that's exactly what we have to say. Sometimes that means city officials will hear complaints from an angry citizen. The reaction is very understandable: I've been injured, and it was the city's tree(or sidewalk or sewer or whatever)and I didn't do anything wrong. From a political standpoint, it would sometimes be a lot easier to simply make a payment to the damaged party, even though legally the city isn't liable for that payment. However,there are at least three good reasons why it wouldn't be appropriate for LMCIT to do so: • First,the funds LMCIT uses to pay claims are public funds that are really the joint property of LMCIT's member cities. Because we are dealing with public funds held by LMCIT in trust, 2