CC_Minutes_2012_0312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• The city must have a policy and practice of inspecting and cleaning its sewer lines on a reasonable schedule. • If there are any existing problems in the city's system which have caused backups in the past or are likely to cause backups,the city must have and be implementing a plan to address those problems. • The city must have a system and the ability to respond promptly to backups or other sewer. problems at any time of the day or week. • The city must have in place an appropriate program to minimize stormwater inflow and infiltration. • The city must have in place a system to maintain records of routine sewer cleaning and maintenance, and of any reported problems and responses. When establishing these criteria,the goal of LMCIT was to focus on reasonableness rather than on creating specific standards. The intent isn't to set an arbitrary requirement that sewers be inspected and cleaned every six months, every three years, every five years, etc. What makes sense in one city with some older and sometimes sagging clay lines probably wouldn't make sense in a city with More Information newer plastic lines, and vice versa. From the underwriting For assistance in developing sewer standpoint,the real concern is that the city has considered policies, practices,and schedules, its own situation and developed policies,practices, and please see the Sewer Toolkit. schedules that make sense for its own situation. How would the "no-fault" coverage work if a sewer backup was caused by city negligence, and where the city was legally liable for the resulting damages? If the situation isn't one where the "no-fault"coverage applies,the city's LMCIT liability coverage would respond just as it does now. That is, LMCIT would investigate and if necessary defend the claim on the city's behalf, and would pay the resulting damages if in fact the city is legally liable for those damages. The same would be true for damages that exceed the$10,000 no-fault limit, or for a subrogation claim against the city by the homeowner's insurance company. The city's existing LMCIT liability would respond just as it does now. What's the legal basis for this coverage? Wouldn't it be a gift of public funds to pay for damages the city isn't legally liable for? First, as noted earlier,one goal is to help reduce health hazards by encouraging prompt clean-ups. That's clearly a public purpose and in the public interest. Second,the law and facts surrounding most sewer backup claims are rarely so clear that the liability issue is entirely black and white. There's virtually always a way that a claimant's attorney can make some type of argument for city liability. Having this coverage in place should help eliminate the need to spend public funds on litigation costs in many of these cases. Sewer Toolkit Other Resources - 16