|
The MVRMA Board held its Strategic Planning
Retreat Monday, May 5, at the Springdale Community Center with Amy Paul from
Management Partners Inc. as the facilitator. The following list of action
items was developed at that meeting:
- Evaluate the membership recruitment process to
assure consideration of good jurisdictions, maintaining stringent
standards, but with a bias toward smart growth.Approved the Actuarial Study for the year ended December 31, 1999.
- Compile information annually (or on a biennial
basis) that provides data and claims analysis (by jurisdiction) on the
portion of premium contributions to loss fund as a percent of payouts,
frequency of claims, trends regarding what has driven the number of
claims and the correlation (or lack thereof) between claims and the
cause of claims.
- Strongly encourage at least one member from each
jurisdiction to serve on a committee and be actively involved in MVRMA.
- Expand opportunities for members to attend
conferences (send four Board members per year instead of three) and
provide better advance notice to members.
- Provide an orientation for new members that
includes a "spend the day" program with staff.
- Consider a rotation of committee positions as
well as new Executive Board members.
- Consider starting a "buddy" program for new
members.
- Reaffirm commitment to building the Shock Loss
Fund.
back to top
2003 Membership Survey Results
- Michael Hammond
As a part of our annual work plan, each MVRMA
Trustee was asked to complete the 2003 Membership Survey. The survey
serves as MVRMA’s report card and is intended to provide feedback to the
Board, staff and service providers regarding current service delivery and
how it might be improved. Respondents were asked to evaluate MVRMA’s
services using the following scale: (5) Exceptional service with very
positive results; (4) Service regularly meets and occasionally exceeds
expectations; (3) Service is acceptable but normally does not exceed
expectations; (2) Service is substandard and requires immediate
improvement; and (1) Service is unacceptable. Sixteen of MVRMA’s seventeen
members completed and returned the survey. Staff compiled the responses
and compared the results to the two most recent surveys completed in 1999
and 2001.
Results of the survey will be discussed at the
Personnel and Compensation Committee Meeting and the June Board Meeting. I
am pleased to report the following summary of the 2003 Membership Survey:
Claims Administration Services:
Members gave this service the highest rating on the survey. The overall
rating was 4.7 compared to 4.6 and 4.23 in 2001 and 1999,
respectively. One member commented, "Very pleased with the quality of
service. Could not be improved!" Another stated, "Very responsive, extremely
knowledgeable, and patient with endless questions."
Loss Control Services: The membership
expressed a high level of satisfaction with an overall rating of 4.3
compared to 4.2 and 3.93 in 2001 and 1999, respectively. Members’ comments
included, "The loss control services and safety training have been very
helpful in providing the framework for us to establish the procedures for
our loss control program. SPEC is a valuable program. There is a good
variety of training opportunities. A great "gem" which most of us do not use
enough." It was also noted that training sessions have received quality
feedback.
Brokering Service:
The overall evaluation was 4.1 compared to 3.6 and 3.78 in 2001 and
1999, respectively. This rating reflected an increased satisfaction in
services with responsiveness to questions and concerns noted as the biggest
improvement. Members’ comments included, "Marsh has done a wonderful job as
a broker for our pool and considering 9/11 we should feel fortunate
regarding our coverage and cost. When I need their services, they have been
helpful with no problems."
Support Services:
Again, members expressed a high level of satisfaction with an overall
evaluation of 4.6 compared to 4.5 and 4.37 in 2001 and 1999,
respectively. Members rated "responsiveness to questions or concerns" and
"quality of information in agenda packets" very high at 4.8 and 4.7. Of the
10 items rated in this area, all received a rating of 4.0 or better. Typical
comments included, "Excellent, great staff, great results. Risky Business
continues to improve in substance. The staff has taken the organization into
the future in a professional, responsive and innovative manner."
Litigation Services:
Members have contact with one of three firms that we use for general
litigation services. Though members may have somewhat limited contact with
MVRMA’s attorneys, the overall opinion was one of satisfaction and
confidence. Members rated their overall evaluation of litigation services
4.0 or better for each of the three firms.
Governance Activities:
Members provided an overall evaluation of management and governance
activities at 4.4 compared to 4.3 in 2001. Keeping members informed
on key issues received the highest mark of 4.7. Members commented, "The
quality of Board Meetings is very good. I think we should consider mixing up
the committees a little more. Staff is well prepared for Board Meetings. I
enjoy how cooperatively we work together. We share the same overall goals
and understand each other’s particular situation."
Workers’ Compensation TPA Services:
The overall evaluation of Workers' Comp TPA services was 4.0 compared
to 3.9 and 4.07 in 2001 and 1999, respectively. Members commented, "Comp
Management communicates and works well with our staff. The group savings
worksheet still is confusing. They (CMI) are more than helpful and prompt."
Miscellaneous: The
final section of the survey asked members to provide input concerning
current or additional services and the overall benefit of membership in
MVRMA. Responses included the following:
1. Supervisory training is an excellent idea.
2. We greatly appreciate the services MVRMA provides.
We believe MVRMA has an excellent staff and see no reason for a change in
their operations.
3. Great coverage at a reasonable cost. More
importantly, we are not at the mercy of an insurance company. We are making
decisions that directly affect our coverage and the way we do business.
4. So much more than insurance when we utilize the
services that are available.
5. Excellent value, professional support, outstanding
coverage, input into litigation, great risk management, claims management
and loss control services!
6. The MVRMA expertise is invaluable to us.
The 2003 Membership Survey results reflect the highest
level of satisfaction to date. The MVRMA staff appreciates the confidence
shown by the members. Much of MVRMA's success can be attributed to building
relationships and providing cost effective risk management services. As a
member owned and member controlled association, providing service is at the
center of what we do. If you would like to receive a copy of the complete
survey results, please call the MVRMA office.
back to top
- Surdyk,
Dowd & Turner
Ohio Senate Bill 120
Ohio Senate Bill 120 has amended several sections of
the Ohio Revised code, but the major relevant changes are to the following
sections: R.C. Sec. 2307.22 and 2307.25.
First, the revised version of R.C. Sec. 2307.22
provides that a tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable in tort for
all compensatory damages that represent economic loss1 if more
than 50% of the tortious conduct is attributable to that tortfeasor.
That section also provides that a tortfeasor is liable only for his
proportionate share of the compensatory damages that represent economic and
non-economic loss if 50% or less of the tortious conduct is
attributable to that tortfeasor. The proportionate share of each tortfeasor
must be calculated by multiplying the total amount of the economic
damages awarded to the Plaintiff by the percentage of tortious conduct
assigned to each tortfeasor as determined by the trier of fact. See
R.C. Sec. 2307.22(C). With respect to non-economic damages, each tortfeasor
is liable to the Plaintiff only for his proportionate share of the
compensatory damages that represent non-economic loss.
These changes represent a significant departure in
Ohio law. Before SB 120 came into effect, a tortfeasor who was jointly and
severally liable was liable for all compensatory damages regardless
of the percentage of liability apportioned to that tortfeasor. For example,
prior to SB 120, even if only 1% of the tortious conduct at issue in the
case was attributable to a single tortfeasor, that tortfeasor was jointly
and severally liable for all compensatory damages. In contrast, under the
changes enacted in SB 120, a tortfeasor whose share of the tortious conduct
is 50% or less is liable only for that percentage of compensatory damages,
economic or non-economic, equal to the proportionate share of liability
assigned to him by the trier of fact.
Also, SB 120 provides that a tortfeasor who has
committed an intentional tort is jointly and severally liable for
all compensatory damages that represent economic loss regardless of the
percentage of tortious conduct attributable to that tortfeasor.
Along with the changes to joint and several liability
of Defendants, SB 120 also provides that a tortfeasor may seek contribution
from any other tortfeasor only for that amount which the tortfeasor paid in
excess of his proportionate share of the common liability. Moreover, no
tortfeasor may be compelled to make contribution beyond that tortfeasor's
own proportionate share of the common liability. See R. C. Section
2307.25(A). Finally, there is no right of contribution in favor of any
tortfeasor against who an intentional tort claim has been alleged and
established.
SB 120 further provides that a tortfeasor who enters
into a settlement agreement with a Plaintiff is not entitled to
contribution from another tortfeasor whose liability is not extinguished by
the settlement. See R.C. Section 2307.25(B). Also, a tortfeasor who
settles with the Plaintiff may not seek contribution from another tortfeasor
to recover any amount paid in a settlement that was in excess of a
"reasonable" amount. Moreover, there is no right of contribution in favor of
any tortfeasor who has been found liable for an intentional tort. See
R.C. Section 2307.25(A). SB 120 also provides that a liability insurer which
has discharged its obligation as an insurer by payment to the Plaintiff, is
subrogated to the tortfeasor's/insured's right of contribution to the extent
it has paid in excess of the tortfeasor's/insured's proportionate share of
the common liability. See R.C. Section 2307.25(C).
It should be noted that SB 120 does not affect joint
and several liability which arises out of actions not based in tort.
Additionally, SB 120 does not affect cases in which the tortious conduct
involved arises out of vicarious liability relationships such as
employee-employer. Essentially, under SB 120, an employee and his employer
are considered a single party when determining percentages of tortious
conduct. They are not considered separate parties. See R.C. Section
2307.24.
SB 120 was passed on December 4, 2002 and became
effective April 9, 2003. Finally, SB 120 applies only to causes of action
that accrue on or after the effective date.
1 Economic loss includes past and future lost wages, past and
future medical expense, property damage, repair expenses and "any other
expenditures incurred" as a result of the tort, except expenses related to
the "preparation or presentation of the claim involved." See R.C. Section
2307.11 .
back to top
- Craig Blair
When a supervisor or employee has an incident that
involves damages, there may be confusion as to how the situation should be
handled. This confusion is especially true for the department that has
experienced only minimal exposure to claims. Should the employee take care
of repairs to city property in-house? Should he report the incident to his
supervisor, to MVRMA or both? These are valid questions that require
periodic review. The following questions and responses are provided to
assist you when an incident occurs:
Is someone making a claim against the city or other
covered party?
When a third party makes a claim against the city or
other covered party (i.e., officer, employee, volunteer, etc.), the claim
must be reported to MVRMA, regardless of the monetary value of the damages.
MVRMA coverages apply to an individual for actions arising from the course
and scope of his city duties.
Was city property damage?
If only city property was damaged, it is considered a
"first-party claim." This type of claim must be reported to and paid by
MVRMA, if the damages exceed or potentially exceed $500.
What should be done when a lawsuit is received?
When a lawsuit is received, it must immediately be
reported to the member city's MVRMA Board representative who will report it
to MVRMA within 48 hours. MVRMA will determine whether there is coverage for
the claim and assign defense counsel. Generally, a lawsuit demanding the
city do something rather than pay something would not be
covered by MVRMA. Examples of this type of suit include complaints asking
for declaratory judgement, injunctive relief or reversal of a zoning board
or planning commission decision. Also, intentional acts are not covered by
MVRMA. However, a lawsuit which includes covered claims as well as
intentional allegations would be defended, but coverage of damages would
only apply to the covered aspects of the suit. Punitive damages are another
example of a claim for which MVRMA would not provide indemnification.
Does other coverage or insurance apply?
MVRMA's coverages are excess to any other insurance
that provides coverage for a particular claim or lawsuit. A good example of
this is the employee who is driving his own vehicle, within the scope of his
job duties and has an accident. MVRMA would request the employee report the
accident to his personal insurance carrier to provide coverage and defense.
If the carrier states an exclusion to coverage, or the limits on the policy
exceed the claim for damages, MVRMA would provide coverage accordingly. The
employee will always have coverage for an accident which occurs while
conducting city business.
Claims must be handled properly to protect the member as well as the
pool. Hopefully, these guidelines will be helpful,
back to top
Does Your City Have a Driver Safety Culture?
-Starr Markworth
What is the leading cause of worker fatality in the
United States? The answer may surprise you. It’s not machinery accidents,
exposure to harmful substances, fire or falls. It is fleet motor vehicle
accidents.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, on-the-job vehicle accidents each year cause 3,000 deaths
and 332,000 injuries. These incidents cost employers more than $42 billion
annually in property damage, medical costs, disability and life insurance
payments, in addition to the cost of lost productivity and hiring and
training new or temporary replacement workers.
Given the high incidence of fleet accidents and their
often devastating consequences, it is vital to minimize drivers’ risks. The
best way to achieve this goal is to create a city-wide driver safety
culture, which includes annual checks of employees' motor vehicle records
and an active driver training program.
Driver checks should go beyond verifying the
individual has a valid license. A license simply makes it legal for one to
drive, not necessarily suitable to represent your city behind the wheel. It
is management’s responsibility to establish criteria for the selection of
drivers and to follow through with the enforcement of the established
criteria. The city may desire to have a written policy defining acceptable
"point" limits and possible sanctions, which may range from counseling or
remedial training to discharge.
Liability should also be taken into consideration. Are
you being negligent if you allow a city employee with a poor driving record
to drive one of your city vehicles and he is involved in a motor vehicle
accident?
The case of Joe Roane Grain Company -vs- McFarland
(Tyler Court of Civic Appeals) cited in 381 S.W. 2D220, points to the
clear use of the personal driving record of an employee in seeking punitive
damage against the employer on the basis of gross negligence. In this case,
the plaintiff alleged the employer was negligent in letting an employee with
such a poor driving record (13 violations) drive a company-owned vehicle
upon the public highway. The trial court permitted the driving record to be
entered into evidence but limited such evidence to the effect of gross
negligence. The jury then found the employer guilty of gross negligence. The
punitive damage award was $24,615 to a 21 year-old man with $420 in medical
expense and a whiplash injury. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
The message from this case comes through loud and
clear; get the driving records of all who drive for you, and review them
periodically.
MVRMA has several options available to assist with
your driver training. We have 15 driver training videos that can be borrowed
by simply contacting the MVRMA office. In addition, MVRMA sponsors and
coordinates training courses for Public Works and Fire/EMS departments
throughout the year. Please contact me with any questions or to discuss
specific driver training for your city.
Given the high incidence of fleet accidents as well as
the personal and monetary stakes involved, no organization can afford to
view fleet driver safety as an option.
back to top
Brownfield Redevelopment Service
Municipalities and corporations now have expanded
opportunities to capitalize on the potential for brownfield development
afforded by passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act of January 2002. A new integrated risk solution
developed by Marsh paves the way to realize this potential.
"Marsh can now connect buyers and sellers with experts
in real estate analysis and environmental clean-up, investors, developers,
end-users, and attorneys and other transaction support specialists so that
both the buyer and the seller of a site have everything necessary to move
the project from concept to completion," says Alan Bressler, a Senior Vice
President at Marsh.
The new federal legislation deals with weaknesses in
earlier environmental legislation and creates private and public sector
incentives to clean up and invest in brownfield sites. Municipalities that
have title to contaminated properties through tax lien foreclosure or
condemnation continue to be eligible for funding to assess the extent of
contamination and to clean up the sites, and the legislation channels more
money into these funds. And for the first time, the law authorizes these
grant funds to be used for the purchase of environmental insurance. With
regard to private sector redevelopment, the law allows purchasers who were
not responsible for the existing contamination to minimize their liability.
There are as many as 650,000 brownfield sites in the
United States, which would be worth approximately $500 billion in real
estate values after clean-up and redevelopment, according to the United
States General Accounting Office. By cleaning up sites and transforming them
into tax-generating properties, tens of millions of dollars could be added
annually to the tax revenue of the nation at the local level.
As a catalyst in brownfield redevelopment, Marsh can
facilitate contacts between buyers and sellers and firms that specialize in
environmental remediation, brownfield law,
liability buy-out, realty advising, capital investment and environmental
engineering. These firms are well-versed in brownfield redevelopment issues.
For example, real estate advisory firms provide highest/best use analysis,
planning, packaging and marketing of surplus sites and deal strategy and
structuring. The brownfield redevelopment attorneys are familiar with each
state’s regulatory framework and know how to minimize long-term
environmental liability and maximize real estate value.
Marsh is the world leader in design, placement and
servicing of customized environmental risk transfer and risk finance
programs to support the acquisition, remediation and redevelopment of
brownfields. "With our depth of knowledge about brownfield development and
the many relationships we’ve developed with experts in this field, Marsh is
positioned to be a catalyst that unlocks hidden potential and revolutionizes
the way in which projects are identified, conceived and brought to
fruition," Mr. Bressler says.
back to top
June 16 - 9:00 am
MVRMA Quarterly Board Meeting
MVRMA Offices
June 19
Supervisory Training
11 sessions every other week
June 25 -
8:30-11:30 am and 12:30-3:30 pm
Confined Space and Heat Over Exposure (2 sessions)
MVCC
August 20 - 8:30-11:30 am and 12:30-3:30
pm
Hazard Communication (2 sessions)
MVCC
back to top
(The following is an excerpt from a letter to the
editor written by David E. Beach, Director of Public Works at the City of
Beavercreek.)
The recent (Brokers' Beat)
article in the April edition of "Risky Business" has
created some cause for concern within the Department of Public Works at the
City of Beavercreek. In particular, the final sentence of the article "Be
assured, however, the cost of the signs will be far outweighed by the cost
of potential claims or lawsuits" seems to imply that MVRMA wholly endorses
such installations on a City-wide basis. If so, the publication of such
advice/policy immediately places the burden of compliance on the
jurisdiction and presents far more liability than did any local pedestrian
crossing problem that may or may not exist. The problem with the article
begins with the lack of attention to
specific details. For instance:
1. The signage added at Michigan State University was
primarily targeted for "mid-block" crosswalks. Your article abbreviated this
to "selected crosswalks" and then inferred that "all streets with crosswalks
need signs." Virtually every street intersection in the City contains one or
more crosswalks, either marked or unmarked.
2. In the State of Ohio, mid-block crosswalks are
specifically avoided due to their hazardous nature. Exceptions may be seen
in downtown Dayton, where most are signalized. To infer that college campus
pedestrian traffic is representative of the conditions experienced by
members of MVRMA is, in my opinion, a far stretch.
3. Were tests conducted on private (university)
streets, public streets, or a combination thereof? How did the signs affect
snow removal efforts?
4. The MVRMA article fails to mention that the
specified observation period, with an increase from 12 stopped vehicles to
221 stopped vehicles, was conducted on "Shaw Lane, one of the highest volume
roads on campus, with up to 20,000 vehicles per day."
While there may be situations and occasions where the
proposed signage may be beneficial, the use of the red vehicle yield symbol
would possibly conflict with other nearby regulatory signs if placed at a
standard intersection.
Executive Director's Comments:
The MVRMA staff encourages comments from readers of
our newsletter and wants to acknowledge that Mr. Beach's comments are well
taken. MVRMA does not endorse the installation of "Yield to Pedestrian"
signs at every intersection. The Ohio Uniform Manual of Traffic Control
Devices should be followed to determine if the use of this sign is
appropriate at a specific crosswalk.
back to top
|
