Issuu

Published by the Public Risk Management Association

www.primacentral.org

APRIL 2013

Challenges and Threats to

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES AND TORT CAPS

GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY IN THE PUBLIC WORKPLACE THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND EXCESS COVERAGE

Going Above and Beyond “Sometimes I have to go above and beyond—literally. “Traveling the Alaskan bush to over 150 cities, boroughs and school districts is daunting, but I love what I do. Helping our members is hugely rewarding. They aren’t just risk partners, they’ve become personal friends. “To protect them from risk and losses, we rely on Genesis for reinsurance. When we encounter a little turbulence — or worse— it’s comforting to know we can trust their specialized expertise and top notch security. “With Genesis, we can always count on safe landings no matter what risks cross our path.”

Visit our website at www.GenesisInsurance.com

— Kevin Smith, Executive Director Alaska Municipal League Joint Insurance Association

Genesis Management and Insurance Services Corporation, 120 Long Ridge Rd, Stamford, CT 06902

A.M. Best A++ XV

S&P AA+

A Berkshire Hathaway Company

Volume 29, No. 4 | April 2013 | www.primacentral.org

The Public Risk Management Association promotes effective risk management in the public interest as an essential component of public administration.

PRESIDENT Dan Hurley, CSP, ARM-P, MS Senior Director, Risk Management & Safety Norfolk Public Schools Norfolk, VA

CONTENTS

PAST PRESIDENT Cindy B. Mallett, AIC, CWCP, ARM-P Risk Manager City of Gainesville Gainesville, GA PRESIDENT-ELECT Betty Coulter Director of Risk Management and Insurance University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte, NC

6 CHALLENGES AND THREATS TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES AND TORT CAPS

By Wayne Falsetto, CPCU

Dean Coughenour, ARM Risk Manager City of Goodyear Goodyear, AZ Michael Fann, ARM-P, MBA Director of Loss Control TML Risk Management Pool Brentwood, TN Matt Hansen, MPA Director, Risk Management Division City & County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA

10 GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY IN THE PUBLIC WORKPLACE

DIRECTORS Ed Beecher Risk Manager City of Pompano Beach Pompano Beach, FL

Amy Larson, Esq. Risk and Litigation Manager City of Bloomington Bloomington, MN

By Julie Garcia, ARM-P, SPHR

Regan Rychetsky, ABCP Director, HHS Enterprise Risk Management and Safety Texas Health and Human Services Commission Austin, TX

14 THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND EXCESS COVERAGE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Marshall W. Davies, Ph.D. EDITOR Jennifer Ackerman, CAE Deputy Executive Director 703.253.1267 • jackerman@primacentral.org

By Craig Bowlus

ADVERTISING Donna Stigler 888.814.0022 • donna@ahi-services.com

Public Risk is published 10 times per year by the Public Risk Management Association, 700 S. Washington St., #218, Alexandria, VA 22314 tel: 703.528.7701 • fax: 703.739.0200 email: info@primacentral.org • Web site: www.primacentral.org Opinions and ideas expressed are not necessarily representative of the policies of PRIMA. Subscription rate: $140 per year. Back issue copies for members available for $7 each ($13 each for non-PRIMA members). All back issues are subject to availability. Apply to the editor for permission to reprint any part of the magazine. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to PRIMA, 700 S. Washington St., #218, Alexandria, VA 22314.

IN EVERY ISSUE

4 News Briefs | 19 Advertiser Index | 20 Member Spotlight

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

PRIMA’s 2013 Annual Conference

HOLDING RISK

JUNE 2–5, 2013 | TAMPA, FLORIDA

Thanks to our platinum sponsors:

For more information, visit http://conference.primacentral.org.

Message from PRIMA President Dan Hurley

THE CHALLENGES POSED BY TOO MUCH GOOD NEWS

hortly after the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged to an all-time high on March 5, 2013, reporters from the Wall Street Journal reported that “some money managers said that they are starting to embrace the stock market’s gravity-defying rally, rather than keep looking worriedly in the rear view mirror at lingering consequences of the financial crisis” (As Confetti Settles, Strategists Wonder: Will Dow’s Rally Last). There is something familiar about this boom on Wall Street that reminds me of the real estate bubble of 2003–08. With the current euphoria from the sudden rise of fortunes, investors appear reluctant to recognize the driving forces of this economic boon as they were with the housing bubble and its potential limitations. You may wonder how all this applies to public risk managers—we all have had the experience that when things are going too good, the potential pitfalls and questions that need to be asked are sometimes pushed aside. In the new book, Risky Business, Insurance Markets and Regulation, edited by Lawrence Powell, a collection of authors offers views on the effect that government regulation has had on the insurance industry, particularly regulation and programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program. One theme that runs through the book is the failure of government leaders to look at the insurance industry in a reasonable way, yielding to public pressure by coming up with regulations that are short-term solutions to long-term problems (The Economics and Politics of Insurance, Arnold King). The relatively short political life of some politicians, who are constantly competing for votes, makes short-term solutions very attractive. Although agreeing that regulation is certainly necessary, Powell argues that over-regulation can actually harm the insurance market and have negative consequences, particularly when states set limits on insurance premium rates and in turn lose insurance carriers in the long run. As we know too well, politics can penetrate deep into the sector of government administration where professionals with expertise can sometimes be ignored. In Matt Taibbi’s book Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con that Is Breaking America, he describes a meeting where Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner Brooksley

Born warned in early 1998 of the economic dangers of unregulated derivatives. In that meeting with President Clinton’s economic team, she was literally shouted down by the Federal Reserve Chair along with the Secretary of the Treasury. According to the Fed Chair, “…the American economy was experiencing a once-in-a-century acceleration of innovation, which propelled forward productivity not seen in generations if ever.” The economic boom created an attitude so intoxicating that the long-term hazards of relatively new and unregulated financial tools were ignored. Born lost the argument but was obviously proven right in the long run. At the local government level, when things begin improving, hopefully when real estate really recovers along with employment and perhaps with minimal losses from a risk management standpoint, our local leaders will take the longer view of the impacts of potential programs aside just from the short-term gains. In a climate of recovery, as risk managers, we may still have to defend our programs, our need for staff and our insurance needs, such as the variety of excess coverages that are deemed necessary. Hopefully, each one of us can provide leadership in our organizations with information on the strengths, weaknesses and potential threats a program may have that we suspect has a significant potential for loss. With that information provided, our political leaders will have the advantage of looking at the long-term consequences of their actions or programs. As a side note, in 2009, Ms. Born was awarded the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award in recognition of the “political courage she demonstrated in sounding early warning about conditions that contributed to the current global financial crises.” Sincerely,

With the current euphoria from the sudden rise of fortunes, investors appear reluctant to recognize the driving forces of this economic boon as they were with the housing bubble and its potential limitations. You may wonder how all this applies to public risk managers— we all have had the experience that when things are going too good, the potential pitfalls and questions that need to be asked

Dan Hurley, CSP, ARM-P,MS 2012–2013 PRIMA President Senior Director, Risk Management and Safety Norfolk (VA) Public Schools

are sometimes pushed aside.

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

News Briefs

NEWS

BRIEFS TENNESSEE HAS STEEPEST DROP IN YOUTH INCARCERATION Tennessee reduced its jailing of teens more than any other state between 1997 and 2010, drawing praise for efforts to rehabilitate young offenders in two national reports, reports The Tennessean. The 66 percent reduction in youth incarceration—from more than 2,100 youths in lockups to fewer than 800—was the steepest drop, landing Tennessee among the 10 states with the lowest rate of incarceration, according to reports by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Justice Policy Institute. The reports detail a 37 percent nationwide decline in jailing of teens and highlight reforms in Tennessee and other states that could be followed elsewhere. Still, each report suggests ways to continue improving juvenile justice systems. And neither considers trends in the past two years—when Tennessee youth detention center violence, budget changes and the policies of some counties became the subject of criticism. Linda O’Neal, executive director of the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, hailed the reports for documenting steady, long-term progress that’s often overlooked. “Increasingly, the science has shown us that locking up young people has lifelong consequences,” O’Neal said. “We know we enhance public safety, produce better outcomes for youth and provide better outcomes for taxpayers when we use effective alternatives to incarceration.” Youth jailing increased from 1975 to 1997—peaking at 107,000 locked up nationally—before a reversal to 70,000 in 2010. That was the lowest number in 35 years, according to the Justice Policy Institute. Except in rare circumstances, jailing doesn’t change behaviors or make communities safer, O’Neal said. O’Neal and the reports credit Tennessee’s improvements to innovative youth crime prevention programs and changes within the Department of Children’s Services.

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING FOR TEACHERS BEING CONSIDERED IN TEXAS State Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, filed legislation that would provide mental health training to Texas teachers, reports The Texas Tribune. The latest in a series of proposals at the Legislature aimed at improving school safety in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., it focuses on mental health rather than beefing up security. Senate Bill 955, coauthored by several state senators, would provide state funds for Mental Health First Aid training to Texas teachers who volunteer. "This bill will help Texas teachers recognize the warning signs for a variety of serious mental illnesses and teach them how to work with parents to coordinate the help and care these children need in order to live better, more fulfilling lives,” Schwertner said in a statement. The voluntary training program would last 12 hours and provide instruction for recognizing and responding to mental illnesses like depression, trauma, bipolar disorder, psychosis and severe anxiety. The Senate Finance Committee would have to approve funding for the Department of Health and Human Services budget to fund the program. The agency would provide grants to local mental health authorities, which would train local teachers. Local authorities would receive money based on how many teachers they train. Other proposals to improve school safety floated by lawmakers this session include: state funding to train select school employees to carry concealed handguns; penalties for school districts whose state-mandated safety plans are out of compliance; a program modeled on the federal air marshals that would permit districts to deputize employees to use firearms as a last line of defense during an attack; and requiring electronic emergency alarms at school campuses to notify police in the event of an emergency.

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

SOME STATES GETTING A HEAD START ON HEALTH PLAN RATINGS This fall, health insurers in a few states will be seeing stars. Not the celestial kind, but stars that reflect their scores on quality measures designed to help consumers make better-informed decisions about what coverage to buy, reports Kaiser Health News. In Oregon, insurers will get one to four stars depending on their screening rates for breast cancer, flu shot delivery and complaint resolution, among other measures. Maryland is considering ranking insurers on how they deal with chronic illnesses and interact with minority groups. Colorado will rate them based on a federal consumer satisfaction survey. Those states and a handful of others, among them Minnesota and California, are opting to do the ratings early, before the federal health law requires them to do so in 2016. They’re scrambling to decide what to measure and how to translate that into something useful to the millions of individuals and small businesses expected to shop for coverage in the new marketplaces beginning in October. Those plans will take effect in January, when most Americans must carry health insurance. The idea is to give consumers information to compare the policies on more than simply price tag or benefits. "The more information, the better," said Laura Etherton, health care policy analyst for US PIRG, an advocacy group. "If you've got a history of breast cancer in your family, you may want to know how well that insurance company did to make sure women between 40 and 69 got a mammogram. If you have a history of heart disease, how is that plan doing at making sure that patients with a heart condition get a cholesterol test?" In many states, consumers will not see much data this fall. That's because the federal health law does not require states to post quality information about participating plans for two years. Federal officials say they intend to provide shoppers in the 26 markets they’re overseeing this year with data from a long-running government survey that tracks patient satisfaction with customer service and access to care. Proponents say quality ratings were included in the health law not only to help consumers, but to improve the health system. They contend that measuring how well insurers, hospitals or physicians follow appropriate treatment guidelines, screen for cancer, save heart attack victims or treat diabetes is the first step toward improving care. The notion is not new: Medicare, for example, rates private insurance plans that offer coverage to seniors, and also uses quality data to rate nursing home, home health agencies and dialysis providers. Still, skeptics say that progress remains debatable after more than two decades of public reporting of quality measures by private firms and government agencies. Another problem is that people shopping for insurance say they want quality information, but "people pretty much focus on cost" and whether their doctor is in an insurers’ network, said Betsy Imholz, director of special projects for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine. "Many quality rankings show everyone is in the middle, or everyone is above average…so people don’t pay much attention to it." For the states moving to meet the law’s requirement for quality comparisons ahead of the 2016 deadline, one of the first challenges is deciding what to measure. Hundreds of measures exist and they must be adjusted to account for differences among plans' enrollees. Additionally, many quality measures reflect how well hospitals or physician groups—not insurers—perform. "You can measure customer service…but what that doesn't get down to is the true quality of care that is delivered," said Maribeth Shannon, a policy director at the California HealthCare Foundation, a nonprofit think tank. Another issue is that little or none of the existing data reflects what consumers will experience in plans sold in the marketplaces because those policies will be new. Many will be offered by existing insurers, however, so states are rating other policies marketed by those insurers. Some insurers who are new to the market may have no track record, raising questions about fairness and how it will affect consumer choices if some plans receive scores and others are unrated. Finally, the ratings have to be done without overwhelming shoppers with too much information. Consumers "don’t want to have to dig through 400 measures to pick a plan," said Nora Leibowitz, chief of policy, research and evaluation for Cover Oregon, one of the state marketplaces that will launch quality ratings this year.

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

CHALLENGES AND THREATS TO

Governmental Immunities and Tort Caps By Wayne Falsetto, CPCU

Governmental immunities and tort caps that serve to protect public entities and limit their exposure are constantly under attack by creative plaintiff attorneys seeking to overturn or circumvent these protections to the benefit of their clients. The outcome of these challenges can have a significant impact on a government entity’s ability to successfully defend high potential claims that are subject to these protections, thereby increasing their exposure to future claims. This article will outline a few of the common and creative approaches plaintiffs have used to overcome the tort caps and immunities. This information may change the way you think about tort caps and governmental immunities and increase your understanding of the complexities and challenges we face when handling claims subject to these limitations. In discussing governmental immunities, it’s helpful to have an understanding of its background and evolution. The doctrine of sovereign (governmental) immunity provides that governmental agencies cannot be sued without their consent. It is derived from old English law and is based on the premise that “the king can do no wrong.” As such, plaintiffs were forbidden from bringing a lawsuit against a state government for the wrongful acts committed by a state actor—i.e. a government employee. A period of tort reform in the mid-20th century changed the landscape for plaintiffs. For a variety of public policy reasons, states began to scale back their immunity defenses, even if ever so slightly. The simplest rationale for the waiver of immunity is that a person injured by the negligence of the government deserves to be compensated. In 1946, Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act, a statute that eliminated the sovereign immunity afforded to the federal government, subject to a variety of exceptions. The Federal Tort Claims Act served as the model act for many states, which followed suit by enacting their own “Tort Claims Act.” Governmental immunity applies to political subdivisions of the state (e.g., municipalities) and was also modified during this period of tort reform. The laws waiving sovereign and governmental immunity consisted of numerous exceptions and limitations. Needless to say, these laws differed dramatically from state to state and the original statutes waiving these immunities have undergone various revisions throughout the years in a number of states.1 Despite the trend to waive sovereign immunity, it remains a vital defense in many cases.

TORT CAPS As previously mentioned, states vary in terms of the degree to which they waive sovereign immunity. One of the most commonly known limitations generally found in state statutes waiving sovereign or governmental immunity deals with the issue of damages caps. Thus, a state statute may waive sovereign immunity for a government actor’s negligence, but a plaintiff may only recover damages up to $100,000, for example. There are 33 states that limit or cap the amount of monetary damages that may be recovered against the public entity. These limitations provide some level of protection against large verdicts and allow public entities to control costs and use their ever-decreasing funds for their intended purposes in serving the public.

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

Typical insurance provisions provide coverage for public entities in excess of a self- insured retention that relates to the tort cap limits, with excess insurance for the public entity for exposures that fall outside the tort cap. For example, state and federal civil rights claims, out-of-state accidents/exposures, breach of contract and employment practices liability claims.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO TORT CAPS It is not difficult to imagine a case where the plaintiff’s damages far exceed $100,000. Thus in order to obtain additional compensation, plaintiffs will often come up with a variety of methods to challenge the validity of the tort cap. The most common approach is constitutional challenges. Fortunately, the standard by which governmental statutory caps are judged is very lenient and as a result, theses efforts have generally been unsuccessful. In one of the more recent decisions, the Supreme Court of South Carolina rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to argue that a South Carolina statute capping damages against government entities at $600,000 per occurrence was unconstitutional under equal protection grounds. The court noted that “relieving the government from the hardships of unlimited liability” is certainly a reasonable motivation. Boiter v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., 3939 S.C. 123, 131 (2011) The most recent published opinion addressing the constitutionality of the New Mexico tort claims cap is Wachocki v. Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department 147 N.M. 720, 228 P.3d 504 (2009). The plaintiffs brought a wrongful death claim against the county sheriff's department when the decedent’s vehicle was struck by a speeding van driven by a corrections officer. The Wachockis argued that the cap on damages creates two classes of individuals receiving unequal treatment: (1) victims with more serious injuries exceeding $400,000 in damages versus victims with minor injuries equal to or less than $400,000, where the latter receive full compensation and the prior do not; and (2) victims of non-government defendants who may be fully compensated and victims of government defendants whose compensation is limited by the cap. The Wachockis also argued that the provisions create a fundamental right to recover damages against the government in an amount at least in proportion with inflation. They argue that, in order for the cap to have the same value as it did in 1991, the $400,000 per person cap should be valued at $603,275, and that the failure to increase the cap reduces the waiver's effectiveness in deterring governmental negligence. The appellate court rejected plaintiffs arguments and upheld the caps stating that “it is not the function of [the courts] to rewrite legislation; the power to change

the present scheme rests with the [legislature].” Thus, we conclude that the current fixed cap is rationally related to the legislative goal of protecting the public treasury.

This article will outline a few of

A recent example of a large verdict that may be subject to constitutional challenge is the Ashley Zauflik v Pennsbury School District case, wherein a badly injured high school student was awarded over $14 million in a December 2011 jury verdict. The district conceded responsibility for the accident, in which its bus driver lost control and ran over the young woman and 19 other students. Ashley lost her leg as a result. The case has received a significant amount of media attention in the Philadelphia area, where the school district is protected by a $500,000 tort liability cap. The reports indicate that the school district and its administrators are under a legal obligation to pay only what is required by law (tort cap) or be subject to criminal charges on an individual basis. More recently, the judge begrudgingly “molded the verdict” to the $500,000 tort cap, which he is legally obligated to do. "There is no dispute that the circumstances of this case create an unfair and unjust result," Bucks County Court Judge Robert J. Mellon said while upholding the liability limit on school districts and municipalities. A "reevaluation of the constitutionality of the statutory cap on damages…is necessary."2 The plaintiff is expected to challenge the tort cap which, up to this point has survived prior constitutional challenges.

EXISTENCE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE Because constitutional challenges are generally more difficult, plaintiffs attempt a second strategy to penetrate these caps. Plaintiffs will argue that any insurance coverage in excess of the tort cap waives the cap. In some states, the purchase or availability of liability insurance by a government entity can constitute a waiver of immunity and/or tort cap limitations. The language from the government’s insurance policy is determinative. Specific policy conditions spelling out that the policy does not waive any available defenses available to the insured—including sovereign or governmental immunity—should be included. Courts seem to recognize there are claims to which immunity doesn’t apply, and a city needs to purchase liability insurance.3

the common and creative approaches plaintiffs have used to overcome the tort caps and immunities. This information may change the way you think about tort caps and governmental immunities and increase your understanding of the complexities and challenges we face when handling claims subject to these limitations.

A recent case facing a challenge on the basis of available insurance involves last year’s verdict of $4 million to each of two families of Virginia Tech students killed in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Attorneys for the parents have asked the court to award each family $2 million despite the state’s $100,000 cap on damages. Plaintiffs say that the money would come from a plan that provides liability coverage for the official actions of state workers. The state responded: "Any insurance covering (individual workers) changes nothing because no judgment can be entered against them. The sole defendant in this case is the Commonwealth, no judgment can be entered against any other party.”

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

Challenges and Threats to Governmental Immunities and Tort Caps Plaintiffs are appealing the court’s dismissal of the Virginia Tech president (VT) before trial and VT is appealing the overall verdict based on flawed instructions.4

INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF PUBLIC ENTITIES A state tort cap can protect public agencies but it may not extend to employees of public entities. Since another law can require that public agencies pay damage awards against its employees while they are performing duties, the cap would essentially be eliminated. In Oregon, the Clark v. OHSU - 343 Or 581, 175 P3d 418, Ore. (Dec. 28, 2007) held the "substitution provision" unconstitutional because it deprived the plaintiff of a substantial remedy as guaranteed by state constitution. Essentially, this decision had the effect of waiving the tort cap limits against individuals (public entity employees) when the plaintiff’s damages clearly exceed the tort cap ($100K/$500K per occurrence). Under the law, state agencies/public entities have a statutory duty to indemnify employees while acting within the course and scope of their employment. Therefore, this decision creates significant potential exposure to public entities for negligent acts of their employees. The Oregon legislature attempted to address the issues created by Clark by increasing the limitations on damages, currently $566,770 per claimant and $1,133,300 per occurrence. While the tort cap limits have been increased, absent a constitutional amendment, the Clark decision can never be resolved in total. There will always be a question as to whether the higher damage cap provides enough of a remedy in more significant injury cases.

PROPRIETARY VS. GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION In determining whether governmental immunity applies to limit liability, some states may distinguish between a governmental function versus a proprietary function. Tort immunity applies to a function of government; proprietary functions would be those that are not uniquely governmental. For example, is delivering electricity a core function of the government? A case in Utah recently dealt with this issue. Here a city electrician failed to de-energize an area where a contractor was working. An employee of a contractor sustained a catastrophic brain injury after being shocked and falling 10 feet. The Utah Government Immunity Act should cap the loss at $620,700. However, in a prior court decision (Laney v. Fairview) the court ruled that running a utility is not a function that the government had immunity for before the tort act was created in 1964. It is considered a proprietary function meaning it is not unique in nature and that it can only be performed by a governmental agency. Even though the injured worker had received workers’ compensation for his injury, there was a significant concern that the court would not uphold a revised statute and the case was settled on a compromise basis for an amount that exceeded the tort cap.

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS THAT PRESSURE CAPS—LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE In the aftermath of significant loss events, legislators often are quick to step in to address the need for a more adequate recovery for victims limited by tort caps or immunities. Take for example the Colorado wildfires in March 2012; this fire started when a prescribed burn on state forest land flared up a few days after it appeared to be extinguished. The result was three fatalities and over 24 homes damaged or destroyed with more than $11 million in total damages. The innocent fire victims were subject to $600,000 tort cap limit. Legislators quickly reached agreement and passed a bill that keeps the tort cap in place but waives it in cases involving state-set prescribed fires such as this one. The law applied retroactive to cover this event. Another example involved the Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people and injured 145 others on August 1, 2007. A special victims fund of nearly $37 million was set up by legislators. Victims had little reason to reject the settlements since state law limited Minnesota's liability for the collapse to $1 million per occurrence. Some victims have also filed suit against an engineering company and construction contractor that worked on the bridge. Their attorneys have said they hope to win more than $100 million in additional compensation.

CREATIVE METHODS ATTEMPTED TO CIRCUMVENT THE CAP CIVIL RIGHTS Since state and federal civil rights claims are not subject to tort caps, plaintiffs will go to great lengths to allege civil rights violations even in what seems to be a straight-forward auto liability claim. For example in the case of Jones v. Bernalillo County, the insured’s fire truck veered to the right and made a U-turn back across the traffic lane colliding with a motorcycle and seriously injuring his passenger. In order to get around the tort cap, the plaintiffs alleged the defendant violated the plaintiffs’ 14th amendment right to substantive due process by driving with reckless disregard for the plaintiffs’ safety and that the defendant had time to deliberate before making the maneuver and intentionally performed the maneuver with reckless disregard for and deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ safety, resulting in plaintiffs damages. In another auto-related case, Wells v. Bisard, et al., an Indianapolis police cruiser driven by Officer David Bisard plowed into a group of four riders on three motorcycles stopped at a red light. One rider was killed, and two others critically injured. Pleadings and news reports indicate that Bisard was initially charged with seven DUI-related felonies. Charges were later dropped because the blood test had been mishandled and no other evidence supported the DUI charge. Plaintiffs sued under the novel theory that his civil rights were violated and that Bisard's action deprived Eric Wells of

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

his life without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment. The city argued that there was no civil rights violation because there was no evidence that Bisard intended to harm Wells. The U.S. District judge denied the officerâ€™s motion to dismiss the case. The judge held that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to show that Bisard intended to cause harm to Wells; rather, the plaintiffs only needed to prove that Officer Bisard recklessly disregarded the risk of harm to others. Bisard appealed the decision but the case settled on June 7th, 2012 for $1.55mm shortly before oral argument. If the case had proceeded on just the state law claims, damages would be capped at $700,000 per claimant.

MULTIPLE BUT SEPARATE ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE BY THE PUBLIC ENTITY Another creative method we have seen are plaintiffs attempting to trigger multiple tort caps involving just once accident. For example, decedent lost control of his vehicle while traveling on snow-packed and icy conditions. He slid off the road and struck a tree, resulting in his unfortunate demise. The plaintiff asserted multiple acts of negligence against the county including failure to close the road, post warning signs, install guardrails and plow/salt the roadway. They alleged that each act of negligence triggers a separate tort limit. Most often, judges will not rule on tort cap limitation issues until after a verdict is rendered, thereby creating uncertainty leading up to and through trial.

MULTIPLE INJURIES ARISING FROM ONE INCIDENT

A subsequent decision by the trial judge limited all but the motherâ€™s bystander claims to a single $500,000 cap. The bystander claim was subject to a separate $500,000 cap. The case subsequently settled and while the total settlement amounts exceed the cap, the bad facts in this case represented a risk that may have been too great for an appeal. In summary, as long as there are plaintiff attorneys and serious injuries, we will continue to see creative challenges that threaten tort caps and immunities and with that comes a level of uncertainty. As underwriters, risk managers and claims professionals, it is important to be aware of these trends and the risks associated with these challenges. Many cases we see look their best at the start of litigation, when we are optimistic about our immunity defenses. However trial and appellate courts are very reluctant to deny the plaintiffâ€™s day in court and will go to great lengths to avoid dispositive rulings, allowing a jury to hear and decide the case. Unfortunately, their decision may be swayed by sympathy and the political environment of the jurisdiction, rather than the facts.

FOOTNOTES 1 Munich RE Public Entity Claims Handling Resource Guide, 1st Edition, 2011 2 Judge reduces former Bucks studentâ€™s $14M award to $500,000 May 25, 2012|By Bill Reed and INQUIRER STAFF WRITER 3 City of West Branch v. Miller, 546 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Iowa 1996). Brooks v. City of Sugar Creek, 340 S.W.3d 201, 208 Wright v. Gaston County, 698 S.E.2d 83, 88-89 (N.C.App.2010.) 4 Associated Press 4/4/2012 and Va. justices to hear Va. Tech lawsuit appeals Published January 27, 2013

Wayne Falsetto, CPCU, is vice president, claims client manager, for Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.

Protect your volunteers

In the case of C.J. v. Alaska State, Dept. of Corrections (12/15/2006), a rape victim, who was attacked by a parolee while jogging on a trail, sued the state for negligent parole supervision. The Supreme Court held that the cap on noneconomic damages does not constitute a violation of equal protection under the Alaska Constitution. However, in what many believe to be a results-oriented decision, the court held that each sexual assault during that one attack constitutes a separate incident under the statute thus the court found that three damage caps applied to this one incident.

DERIVATIVE CLAIMS SUBJECT TO SEPARATE TORT LIMITS Plaintiffs alleged that a separate cap applied to each loss of consortium claim by parents and siblings in addition to bystander claims. In a recent Louisiana case, the plaintiffs were the divorced parents of a 6â€“year-old child, who died as a result of injuries sustained while attempting to board a school bus. His mother came across the scene immediately after the accident. Louisiana has a $500,000 per occurrence cap and initially, plaintiffs claimed a total entitlement to five statutory caps. (Brother, parents and bystander claims)

Volunteers Insuranceâ€”itâ€™s not just our name; itâ€™s our specialtyâ€”and weâ€™ve been at it for over 40 year www.cimaworld.com 800.222.8920

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

GENERATIONAL

DIVERSITY in the Public Workplace

By Julie Garcia, ARM-P, SPHR

The tension in the room was palpable. We were all baby boomers, young professionals between 25 and 35. He was a consultant in his early 60s, a Radio Baby, a Traditionalist. He was there to test our knowledge and ensure we practiced the highest standards of our profession. He was the standard bearer. We were incensed. We were Baby Boomers—the annihilators of standards—we had ended a war, brought civil rights to national prominence and challenged the “Father Knows Best” generation. He represented “old”—although he flew his own prop plane from engagement to engagement—we all knew this would be his last flight. Unfortunately for us, he was old school, no messing around. His methods were blunt; there was no free love here and less than 20 percent of us passed the first exam. But you know what they say, “What goes around comes around.” I am now in my 60s walking into rooms full of Boomers, Generation Xers, Yers and Zers. My generation had an on and off relationship with authority but, these generations are unimpressed, basically polite and, at best, texting continuously throughout my presentation. Up until a few months ago, I even had five generations in my office working under one roof. The differences were at times striking and other times subtle and complex and always a challenge. The key to success requires a basic understanding of the generational experiences and generational work values. Effective strategies stem from our ability to import these understandings into our daily communications. First and foremost, generational groupings are broad-brush collections fit together by hundreds of sociologists and researchers. These are groupings determined by similar historical, economic and environmental events and they are suggestive, not conclusive. They generally have similar perspectives and communication styles. However, there are many overlaps in the generational groups; Baby Boomers may act and communicate much like their Radio Generation parents. In addition, cultural and socioeconomic factors influence the behaviors and work ethic of a group. As a human resources and risk management practitioner, I can comfortably say there are many people who do not fit any pattern or norm set by the best researchers and scholars.

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

THE RADIO GENERATION/ TRADITIONALIST: 1930–1945 This generation grew up during the Depression, Korean War, the Dust Bowl and World War II. They sacrificed for the greater good. Radios and movie theaters were the primary source for news events and entertainment. I worked with a woman whose family made their fortune during the Depression; they owned the local theater that played the WWII newsreels. At work, they are pragmatic, dedicated to their employer, committed to the chain of command, self-sacrificing and require solid reasoning for change. “You didn’t try something different; you just tried it harder, the same thing that didn’t work,” said Wayne Lewis in Ken Burns’ The Dust Bowl. They work best with managers who are clear, logical and decisive. I once asked a safety manager to be creative and flexible in his communication regarding a nagging, yet simple, safety issue in order to arrive at the desired result. His response was simply, “Safety regulations are not flexible and communicating them does not require creativity.”

BABY BOOMERS: 1946–1964 Dr. Spock, “Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll,” “Father Knows Best,” The Smothers Brothers, “duck and cover,” the Civil Rights Movement, the assassination of a president, Watergate, the Vietnam War, “Don’t trust anyone over 30” (except for Walter Cronkite). Baby Boomers are a generation that remembers the first TV as well as the first color TV. The events of the world were broadcast in living color, in near real-time and into our homes. This is a generation that believes it can do or change anything. My parents told me I could have anything I wanted, if I worked hard for it. Boomers are said to have a strong work ethic, are strategic thinkers, thrive on participative management and have a “whatever it takes” attitude. They look for an employer that will provide them recognition and personal satisfaction.

Although not a generation known for job hopping, and with retirement taking on new meaning, boomers are moving into jobs in which they can reinvent themselves and/or stay longer in the ranks of the employed. For risk managers, this means an aging workforce and the potential for increased workers’ compensation and health care costs. Safety matters. From Dr. Spock to Mister Spock, from “Danger Will Robinson” to R2D2, from Mr. Ed to Big Bird, welcome to GENERATION X: 1965–1976 They are latchkey kids; they survived the highest rate of divorce, had both parents working and as a result have learned to be independent and alone. This generation always had TV, fast food, Sesame Street, they witnessed the Challenger disaster and the first Desert Storm and most importantly they know who shot JR. They are self-reliant, independent thinkers and result-driven. They watched their parents grind away at a “job” with little self-satisfaction, as result they don’t have the same long-term commitment to their employers their parents had. They look for an employer who meets their needs: life/work, time, results, and/or reward. Communication of risk must not be parent-child; it must be relevant to both life and work, results focused and must include a discussion of the tools available to them to accomplish the set goal.

MILLENNIAL/GENERATION Y: 1977–1990 or for the more facetious – Generation Why? According to the Beloit College Mindset list, Millennials born in 1980 have never owned a record player; in fact, the statement “you sound like a broken record” means nothing to them. CDs were introduced when they were one-year-old. They have always had remote controls, VCRs, cable, answering machines and home computers. Vietnam is as ancient history to them as WWI, WWII and the Civil War. My favorite—“Kansas, Boston, Chicago, America and Alabama are all places—not musical groups.”

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

Generational Diversity in the Public Workplace PEW Research found this to be one of the most educated generations. They are confident, self-expressive, open to change and upbeat. They are the first tech-savvy generation. More than eight-in-10 say they sleep with a cell phone glowing by the bed, poised to disgorge texts, phone calls, emails, songs, news, videos, games and wake-up jingles. They use social media as a means of networking, working, communicating and sharing everything from personal information to opinions and ideas. Hampered by the Recession, they are the least likely to own their own home or to have health insurance. Fortunately, most believe they can meet their financial goals in the future. They are also most likely to work for many employers in their lifetime in search of the right salary, environment and growth opportunity. They can be committed to learning, personal and professional development, as long as they are directing the path. When someone uses the phrase “multi-task,” I think of this generation, they thrive when given projects which involve many dimensions and require completion in a short time frame. However, this is the generation that will challenge common practice or procedures. They have a world of ideas at their fingertips, they will use them in order to challenge and create new approaches.

They are self-directed, independent and expect employers to allow work, play and socialization 24/7. Their connection to the world is mobile. More than 60 percent of American teens admit to risky driving, and nearly half of those also admit to text messaging behind the wheel. Over 20 percent of fatal car crashes involving teenagers were the result of cell phone usage, and this expected to increase by 4 percent every year. The recession will have them competing for jobs with people who are older and have more experience. When they do land a job, they will expect immediate recognition for a job well done, hopefully in the form of a promotion. Employers should remember “going viral” can be anything including something from work. Communicating risk should be visual and kinesthetic. Managers will need to be coaches and mentors.

They have grown up in cyberspace. If they miss The Daily Show, they can always get their news on YouTube. They watched 9/11, Columbine and the War on Terror unfold on TV and the Internet.

In the public and non-profit sectors, all of these generations can be found in every sector of influence: employees, volunteers, docents, board members and politicians. The roadmap for working with all these generations under one roof is easy to navigate. Be flexible and open to new approaches. Be a master at connecting; find those connections and work them. Reward the ground crew. Have fun. And finally, my office manager recommends, “Food, wine and pay for their cell phones.”

They can text faster with two thumbs that most of us can type with all fingers. They are constantly “connected.”

Julie Garcia, ARM-P, SPHR, is regional director with Poms and Associates.

GEN Z/THE NET GENERATION: 1990–PRESENT

Communication is rarely one-on-one; it is virtually global communication with their social network. Instant access to friends, social media and entertainment is critical to their livelihood. Their connection to the world is interactive, allowing them to express opinions on everything from goods and services to selecting the hero and villain in a TV series.

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

Are Your Drivers as Safe as They Could Be? No public fleet is immune from drivers taking risks in their vehicles. Drivers can be distracted, lose sight of driving fundamentals and exhibit any number of behaviors that can cause risk to your fleet. DriveCam saves you money and protects your drivers and your community. Read how one innovative community addressed safety throughout its 2,200-vehicle fleet and join your colleagues at more than 500 companies and communities who have already made the decision to use DriveCam.

To learn more, click here or call or visit DriveCam. 866.419.5861

www.drivecam.com

THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND

EXCESS COVERAGE By Craig Bowlus

Whether you are a stand-alone entity or part of a pool, maintaining a good working relationship with your excess coverage provider is important. Commercial excess insurers, excess pools and reinsurers who agree to follow a memorandum of coverage are all going to evaluate their relationship with an insured based on how well they manage claims and litigation within their retention, and how well they communicate what they are doing in the “primary” layer. It is important to avoid surprising these key business partners. They are in the business of paying large claims, but like you, need to have a realistic picture of future costs. Employing best practices and clearly communicating your case strategy will benefit both parties by precluding finger pointing if there is a bad result, and reinforcing their view of you as a good risk when there is a positive result.

GET TO KNOW YOUR EXCESS PROVIDER If the excess provider is a pool, their claims manager, members of the claims committee and executive director are all going to be involved in a large claim. Get to know what information they want from you as you manage the claim in the primary layer. This is just as important if you are dealing with an excess carrier or reinsurer. Whenever possible, get to know the underwriter and claims manager. Better cooperation on difficult claims issues is more likely if you have good working relationships with these key individuals. Expectations vary; you need to know theirs to ensure clear communication. When in doubt, over-report. Having managed excess claims for more than 25 years, I can tell you that with respect to costs, there is an equation that is well known to your pool or excess carrier. The vast majority of cases involving high exposure are litigated. Pools, excess carriers and reinsurers all know that litigation is evil. Their actuaries have proven it. Consider the following: Litigation requires time and money. We all know that time equals money, therefore, litigation equals money x money, or money2 As is well known, money is the root of all evil. We can find the root of money2 It is therefore proven that money2 = litigation = evil There are a number of studies that show a direct correlation between how long a case is open, and how much it will impact an organization’s bottom line. This applies to both loss and expense. What the pool or excess carrier wants to know is: what is the insured doing relative to early resolution of cases? Is the insured taking steps to control expenses? Do they have a plan

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

and are they following it? And, are they keeping us advised of what is going on? The most effective ways to reduce costs and keep your pool and or excess carrier happy are to employ early evaluation and settlement strategies, use strong litigation management practices and educate city managers, city councils, school boards, etc., relative to the economic decisions that sometimes need to be made in order to defray costs. While early resolution is not always politically possible, it should always be evaluated as an option.

LARGE CLAIMS Most catastrophic casualty exposures and high-expense matters are going to come in the form of a claim, followed by a lawsuit. As soon as you are aware of a serious exposure, notify your pool or carrier right away. Many times funds are available for “pre-litigation” activities. These include getting counsel involved early on in the evaluation of an employment practices exposure, getting an accident reconstruction expert out right after a serious accident, and even retaining PR specialists in some cases. The TPA or in-house staff should do a detailed investigation, as quickly as is possible. Photographs are key, especially if lines of sight or signage are involved. Be proactive, and recognize that an excess provider has seen many more large losses than an individual entity has, and probably has good advice to share relative to what should be done early on in the life of potentially large claim. What happens when the complaint is served? In some instances, cases are simply referred to counsel with instruction to answer the complaint and provide an assessment of exposure. More often, the case is referred to counsel with specific instructions regarding reporting and evaluation, along with a request for a budget. This is where I see, more often than not, failures relative to litigation management best practices. Excess providers watch for such failures. It’s

usually not a matter of defense firms overbilling or trying to overwork a file; it’s more often a failure to agree on a litigation plan and then follow it. A key component of any litigation plan should be one of early evaluation and if possible, early resolution. This cannot be achieved unless counsel is: a) honest in his or her assessment of liability, and b) honest with his or her projection of costs. Do not accept “it is too early to assess liability” from counsel. Direct your defense firm to provide an initial assessment of liability within 45 days. At a minimum, get a general assessment of the chances of winning the case in law and motion and then at trial, if the case is going to get that far. You, your adjuster or your TPA, are going to have to set a loss reserve on the case. Claims professionals have done this hundreds of times and have a sense for what the liability situation is early in the life of a claim. Why would counsel be any less competent? Of course, counsel may change his or her assessment of liability as the case progresses, but get one with their first report, and make sure they continue to provide this assessment as the case develops. Once the liability assessment is in hand, it’s time to look at costs. It has been my experience that defense budgets are rarely met. Why? Too often, there are no consequences for not meeting them. There needs to be an accurate assessment of what it is going to cost to get out of a case in law and motion, as well as a viable assessment of winning the motions. The projected cost to get from law and motion through trial if that motion is unsuccessful needs to be known. Then do the math. If the case is going to cost $100,000 to get to a successful motion with a 50 percent chance of winning, consideration should be given to settling the case early for up to $50,000. If an EPL case is going to cost $100,000 to defend with an exposure of $500,000 and a 50 percent chance of winning, $300,000 should be set up for reserves (50 percent of defense and loss

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

The Public Sector and Excess Coverage costs). The problem is that the $100,000 cost estimate too often changes to $250,000 after a year, and the liability assessment from 50 to 80 percent; thus, the overall costs to settle climb to something closer to $500,000. The key is this: know that there is a $500,000 exposure early in the life of the claim, and if so, find a way to make it go away early. This is difficult to do unless there is an honest and early evaluation from counsel. While auditing over many years, I have found that the best practice of getting realistic fee projections and liability assessments early in the life of cases is inconsistent in the public entity world. Defense firms that provide early and honest assessments of costs and exposure help their clients make accurate and early economic assessments. They are highly valued business partners. Your entity has to strive to achieve this relationship with counsel. What happens too often is the reverse. An entity litigates a file for two or three years, exceeds the initial budget by a factor of 50 percent, and then settles the case for a value that could have been achieved as soon as liability was assessable. This is not counsel’s fault, it is yours if it happens to you more than once or twice. Defense counsel is in the litigation profession. Their job is to win cases if they aren’t settled. They will

Reduce the device shape to the required size, then make a new clipping mask.

We know your risks.

(often) do everything they need to in order to achieve that result. Your job is to assess whether or not a scorched earth strategy is one you want to employ. Always remember: more than 98 percent of litigated cases are settled short of trial. Logically, if you are settling 98 percent of your cases, the most cost effective practice is to settle them early. This is not an indictment of the legal profession; it is an observation on the tendency for claims professionals and defense attorneys not to be on the same page. A typical “fight or flight” assessment on a case is complicated by politics and emotion. It can be especially difficult and often unadvisable to economically settle a police claim where there is little or no liability, and EPL cases are notoriously difficult to get boards, councils, city managers and superintendents to sign off on. Regardless, there should be a documented economic thought process behind the settlement decisions that are made at the primary level, one that your excess provider can follow and understand. With larger cases, the valuation of a case is important to your pool and/or excess carrier. Consistent failures to control costs will become apparent to them and may result in increased rates, assessments, and “branding” issues associated with how an entity manages its litigation.

At Markel, our policies constantly respond to changes in your industry because the most dangerous risk is the one you never saw coming.

Specialty insurance and reinsurance for public entity pools, reciprocals, trusts, and JPAs publicentitypoolinsurance.com

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

PRIMA 2013

WEBINAR SERIES FREE FOR PRIMA MEMBERS! Looking for a cost-effective way to train your staff while avoiding the frustration of budget cuts and travel expenses? The Public Risk Management Association’s Webinar series is designed to help risk management professionals like you excel in the field without leaving your office.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15 | 12 PM – 1:30 PM EST Workers’ Compensation is a Time Bomb for Public Entities Presenter: Steve Link, Executive Vice President, Midwest Employers Casualty Company Evolving issues are poised for dramatically increasing the cost of workers’ compensation for public entities. These issues require best practices to evolve and create better outcomes for injured workers and financial savings for employers. This Webinar will discuss the issues that negatively impact outcomes and cost and identify areas where best practices are changing/need to change and discuss possible solutions to these emergent problems. During this Webinar, participants will: • Identify the cost drivers negatively impacting workers’ compensation • Understand the analysis required to identify these cost drivers • Possibly solve and mitigate these losses Who should attend: • Risk managers • Workers’ compensation coordinators • Financial officers • Claims adjusters

PRIMA members receive complimentary registration and access to the Webinars! S E R I ES S P O N S O R :

For more information, or to register, visit www.primacentral.org.

The Public Sector and Excess Coverage

CALENDAR OF EVENTS PRIMA’s calendar of events is current at time of publication. For the most up-to-date schedule, visit www.primacentral.org.

WEBINARS 2013 • July 17: Winning Strategies for Contractual Risk Transfer • September 18: Implementing ERM in the Public Sector: Obstacles and Opportunities • November 13: Amendments to Americans With Disabilities Act—Implications for Human Resource Management

PRIMA ANNUAL CONFERENCES June 2–5, 2013 PRIMA 2013 Annual Conference Tampa, FL Tampa Convention Center June 8–11, 2014 PRIMA 2014 Annual Conference Long Beach, CA Long Beach Convention Center June 7–10, 2015 PRIMA 2015 Annual Conference Houston, TX George R. Brown Convention Center June 5–8, 2016 PRIMA 2016 Annual Conference Atlanta, GA Hyatt Regency Atlanta

BEST PRACTICES  As soon as you know about a catastrophic event, do a complete investigation; don’t wait to investigate until a claim is filed if you are 50 percent or more certain you are going to get sued. Follow social media related to the event and its participants. Do accident reconstruction early, secure evidence such as wrecked vehicles early and maintain a chain of custody.  Tell employees not to make any statements or share their opinion concerning liability to anyone outside of your legal and risk management departments.  Report high exposure matters to your pool or excess carrier early, regardless of liability. Take advantage of any “pre-litigation” assets you may be able to access.  Get to know your pool’s claims or your excess claims management team, find out what they want in advance of losses, and tap into their expertise.  If you don’t have them, create litigation management procedures. You can get these from your peers, your TPA, or your broker, if they have a consultative practice.  Get an early and honest assessment of liability and costs from counsel. Have them copy your excess carrier on their status reports, if the claim has been reported.  Get a new budget if the case assessment does change.

OTHER MEETINGS November 4–8 PRIMA Institute 2013 Milwaukee, WI

 Do the math, and come up with a viable assessment of the value of the case as early as is possible.

UPCOMING CHAPTER MEETINGS Chapter meetings are listed on a space-available basis. For a complete list of PRIMA chapter meetings, visit www.primacentral.org. For information on a specific meeting, please contact the chapter directly.

 If you see a pattern of overestimation of the chances of winning motions or cases, with continual losses on motions that were projected winners, or “cold feet” at the end of a case, develop a business relationship with a firm who will adhere to your litigation management procedures.

Arizona April 19 Missouri April 10 To have your chapter meeting listed on the PRIMA Web site, contact Bles Dones at bdones@primacentral.org.

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

 If possible, settle out for this value (or less) as soon as is possible. Don’t spend expense money to get to a settlement that could have been achieved months or years ago.

Following these best practices will save your entity money and raise your viability as an insurable risk in the eyes of the excess community. Successful corporations, TPAs, well-managed pools, as well as many of your peers, take this approach. Make sure your entity is doing something similar. Craig Bowlus is the managing director of Aon Risk Solutions’ Risk Pooling practice group.

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

Advertiser Index

ADVERTISER INDEX Aon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover CIMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 9 DriveCam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 13 Genesis Underwriting Management Company.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Markel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 16 Munich Reinsurance America.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover

Has your entity launched a successful program? An innovative solution to a common problem? A money-saving idea that kept a program underbudget? Each month, Public Risk features articles from practitioners like you. Share your successes with your colleagues by writing for Public Risk magazine! For more information, or to submit an article, contact Jennifer Ackerman at jackerman@primacentral.org or 703.253.1267.

FIND US ON FACEBOOK!

Keep up with whatâ€™s happening at PRIMA and connect with your risk management peers! Visit us at www.facebook.com/primacentral.

APRIL 2013 | PUBLIC RISK

Member Spotlight

PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE WELLNESS CENTER FOCUSES ON PROACTIVE HEALTH CARE Each month, Public Risk features a member who has gone above and beyond in a feature column titled “Member Spotlight.” Do you know someone who deserves recognition, has made a contribution or excelled in their profession? If so, we’d like to hear from you for this exciting column, as PRIMA shines the spotlight on its members. To be considered for the Member Spotlight column, contact Jennifer Ackerman at jackerman@primacentral.org or 703.253.1267.

edical clinics in public entities are nothing new. Cities, towns, school districts and municipalities are jumping on the onsite medical center bandwagon.

The Palm Beach County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Department (PBSO) is taking this project one step further by creating a wellness center that focuses on not only treating acute symptoms but providing preventative care. The Center opened in June 2010 under the direction of Risk Management Division Manager Hilda Gonzalez, and with the guidance and support of the Sheriff of Palm Beach County Ric Bradshaw. Sheriff Bradshaw and DM Gonzalez recognized the need for a facility in which uniformed deputies could receive quality care under a reasonable semblance of privacy and security. They understood that the health care system in general is in need of vast improvement, and felt it the next logical step in providing top-notch benefits for all PBSO employees. “This clinic was created out of a desire to improve the overall quality of life for our employees by being proactive in preventing disease and injury,” said Catherine Adriance, CWCP, unit manager for risk management. “It also enables us to be good stewards of the money of the taxpayers of Palm Beach County.” Adriance said that, as stewards of public funds, “we find it necessary to walk that fine line of providing quality care while keeping costs to a minimum. It is important to, not just hire healthy people, but to keep employees healthy. Public sector employees remain in their jobs, or at least with their agency, for much or most of their adult lives. This creates a long-term relationship, and a direct effect on health care costs and thus, insurance premiums.” PBSO created an integrated wellness approach, using its wellness center as the focal point. To augment the center, program and initiatives were developed that focus on health and well-being, including:

PUBLIC RISK | APRIL 2013

• Drive Safely to Work month: Throughout the month of October, banners were placed in PBSO parking lots reminding everyone to drive safely. Employees also received safe driving messages via email. • Twice-per-year walking challenges: PBSO has a walking challenge, where employees form teams and compete to walk the greatest number of miles within a given period. • Boca Raton Community Hospital MammoVan: Twice each year, the local hospital brings its mobile mammogram unit to the PBSO headquarters to offer mammograms to employees and the general public. • Lunch-and-Learn: In conjunction with the department’s insurance carrier, they hold lunch-andlearn sessions on topics like how to handle stress and workplace conflict. These wellness initiatives, combined with the traditional offerings of an onsite employee health clinic have helped PBSO realize a tremendous cost savings. “With a return-on-investment of 2-to-1, PBSO is saving in the range of $2.64 million to $2.94 million in reallocated expenses, such as medical cost savings, specialty care avoidance, lab replacement and brand drug avoidance,” said Adriance. “We have also experienced extremely high satisfaction levels with the service and treatment at the wellness center. Due to employee participation in the center, our overall claims per employee per month have been reduced by 6.6 percent.” Since opening the doors of the Wellness Center, three other law enforcement agencies in Palm Beach County have opened their own centers, with DM Gonzalez as a consultant on the process. For more information on PBSO’s Wellness Center and initiatives, contact Catherine Adriance at adriancec@pbso.org or Hilda Gonzalez at gonzalezh@pbso.org.

W W W.PRIMACENTRAL .ORG

Global tradition

inspired Solutions

Enabler of Progress

insurance is our promise for the future. Risk and progress go hand-in-hand. By finding ways to insure risk, we find ways to move society forward. As one of the largest participants in an industry so vital to our communities, we are committed to developing the solutions needed to address the challenges of tomorrow. Learn more at www.munichreamerica.com

Not if, but how Products and services provided by Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey

Aon is the principal sponsor. of Manchester United.

Their goals net championships. We help risk pools achieve theirs. Pools require a risk management partner that can do far more than just place insurance policies. The risk retention and transfer solution must be tailored to the unique financial, coverage and service needs of each pool. Only Aon offers the distinct combination of brokerage, consulting and 21st-century technology services and products for both Property & Casualty and Health & Benefits that will help your pool excel now and in the future. For more information visit us at aon.com

aon.com/manchesterunited

Risk. Reinsurance. Human Resources. Empower Results速