Agenda Packets - 1986/11/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GS1;1,-1. Tort Liability and Insurance (A) While many debate whether there has been an "explosion," it is fairly well established that the growth of tort litigation over the past saveral years has resulted in increasing liability for governmental entities, private businesses, and individual citizens. Additionally, business practices of insurance companies have played a significant role in the recent insurance crisis. The - League supports reasonable reforms dealing with both sides of the liability insurance issue. The Municipal Tort Liability Act was enacted in 1963 to protect the public treasury while giving the citizen relief from the arbitrary, confusing, and - administratively expensive prior doctrine of sovereign immunity with its inconsistent and irrational distinctions between governmental and proprietary activities. The act has served that purpose well in the past. However, courts frequently forget or ignore the positive benefits secured to citizens damaged by public servants as a result of enactment of the comprehensive act which includes some limitations on liability and some qualifications of normal tort claims procedure. . The special vulnerability of far-flung government operations to debilitating tort, suits continues to require the existence of a tort claims act applicable to local governments or local governments and the state. The need for some type of limitations is evidenced by recent experiences with the insurance market. The 1986 Legislature responded to some of these concerns in enacting the _ 1986 Tort Reform Act, but the problems continue to exist and further action is necessary. The League recommends the following changes in the tort liability system: 1. The procurement of insurance should not constitute a waiver of any limitation or immunity provided by law except the dollar limitations and in that event the policy must expressly waive such limitation with specificity. 2. ['unitive damages, intended to punish and deter egregious conduct, have not been effective because the standards of applicability have been too vague. The League does not oppose the total elimination of punitive damages, but would prefer that the Legislature specify that punitive damages may be awarded only when the conduct involved manifests malicious and flagrant indifference to safety, and places monetary Limits on such awards. If however, the Legislature is unwilling to raise the standards for punitive damages, it must address the concern of city officers and employees who may be personally liable and cities should be given the option to either defend and indemnify or not to defend and indemnify its officers or employees for punitive damages claimed and levied against them. Such decisions must be made by the city within a reasonable time after being served with a summons and -14-