Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />March 13, 1991 <br />The City Administrator reported that the Recreation <br />Association recently obtained Liquor Liability coverage <br />for one of their events through the Church's insurance <br />program. <br />Scalze stated that it was her understanding that under <br />certain circumstances the State exempted organizations <br />from the requirement of obtaining liquor liability <br />insurance coverage, <br />The City Attorney replied that this was correct, <br />however, the question is what does the City want. Just <br />because an organization is not required to carry the <br />coverage does not exempt that organization from the <br />exposure. <br />Steve Morelan, representing the Recreation Association, <br />reported that they have looked into obtaining liquor <br />liability coverage and it is very expensive. After <br />discussions about the cost, Morelan reported that the <br />Recreation Association felt the money was not well <br />spent and they were willing to take the risk. Morelan <br />pointed out that the Recreation Association's events <br />are very well run, therefore, felt their risk was <br />minimal. Morelan asked why the City was now thinking <br />about making liquor liability insurance coverage a <br />requirement for temporary license holders. <br />Blesener stated that if it could be shown that the City <br />would not be liable, he would be willing to not require <br />the liquor liability insurance of temporary license <br />holders. However, the City Attorney and City <br />Administrator are saying that there is the potential <br />for exposure to the City and the City does not have the <br />appropriate liability insurance coverage to protect <br />itself. <br />Steve Morelan asked if temporary license holder <br />purchased the insurance if the City could be listed as <br />an insured. <br />The City Attorney did not know. The Attorney pointed <br />out that the City cannot have anything to do with the <br />sale of liquor unless it is a municipal liquor <br />operation. If there is no Dram Shop coverage and there <br />is a Dram Shop claim, the City Attorney felt that both <br />the license holder and the City would be sued. The <br />City Attorney also pointed out the issue of liability <br />of bartenders indicating that if there is a Dram Shop <br />claim, the person serving the liquor could be <br />personally liable. <br />Morelan reported that the Recreation Association has <br />discussed this issue and again felt the risk minimal. <br />Page 5 <br />