City of Milton faces scrutiny over $32.5 million judgment

During a recent City of Milton council meeting, significant discussions emerged regarding the city's involvement in a high-profile wrongful death lawsuit and the subsequent appeal process. The meeting featured public comments that highlighted concerns over the city's handling of the case, particularly in relation to the $32.5 million judgment against it.

A commercial insurance broker with 35 years of experience raised critical questions about the city's legal strategy and the role of its insurer, the Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency (GIRMA). He emphasized that the city was not involved in the defense during the litigation, stating that GIRMA managed all legal representation and settlement negotiations. This raised concerns about whether the city had adequately communicated its interests to GIRMA, especially regarding the rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The broker questioned whether the city had issued a \"hammer letter,\" a formal demand for the insurer to settle within policy limits, which is a common practice in the insurance industry. He urged council members to investigate whether such measures were taken, given the potential financial implications for taxpayers.

Further complicating the situation, an email from a citizen pointed out inconsistencies in the city's public communications. The FAQ on the city’s website stated that the city was not involved in settlement decisions, yet it also indicated that the city had filed motions related to the appeal. This contradiction has led to confusion among residents regarding the city's actual role in the ongoing legal matters.

In response to these concerns, the city attorney confirmed that they are currently exploring options to mitigate the city's financial exposure resulting from the judgment. However, the attorney's involvement came only after the litigation had concluded, raising further questions about the city's legal oversight during the trial.

The meeting concluded with a unanimous approval of the consent agenda, which included various administrative items, but the discussions surrounding the lawsuit and the city's legal strategies remain a focal point for residents and council members alike. The council is expected to address these issues further in upcoming meetings to ensure transparency and accountability in the city's legal affairs.