Scott County Commissioners approved moving the county's property and casualty coverage to a new program after Liberty Mutual and several other carriers either declined to renew or would not underwrite the county’s risk mix.

The change, approved by motion during the meeting, replaces the county's prior placement with a package that combines a self‑insured retention (SIR) style program with a $1,000,000 first-layer limit and a $5,000,000 excess layer. According to the broker presenting the package, property deductibles would increase to $150,000 and liability deductibles to $250,000, with a maximum cap of $500,000 that applies to the program’s pooled deductible exposure. The broker said the total package premium is similar to last year but the county will face higher deductibles and a roughly $24,000 increase across the whole insurance portfolio.

Why it matters: Commissioners were told market conditions and loss history left the county few options. Several national carriers that had insured Scott County in prior years declined to offer coverage for the county's jail risk or raised underwriting barriers. The new arrangement reduces the number of carriers needed but raises the county's near‑term financial exposure when a claim occurs.

County officials and the presenting broker described a convergence of two forces: insurers pulling back from jail exposures and a recent run of large auto liability and other claims that have driven up loss history. “Getting away from counties, specifically because of the jails. The jails are the leading issue for them,” the insurance broker said when explaining why multiple firms declined to continue coverage. The broker also listed carriers that either declined or tightened underwriting, including Liberty Mutual, Public Risk Underwriters, Tokyo Marine HCC, Bliss McKnight and Travelers.

Commissioners asked several operational questions about how the program would work. The broker said the SIR approach keeps coverage limits similar to the county’s prior program but shifts more immediate cost to the county through higher deductibles and a third‑party administrator (TPA) to handle claims; Brentwood Services was named as the TPA that will work with the auditor’s office. The broker also said the program allows the county to use its own attorneys on claims.

Several commissioners pushed for concrete steps to reduce claims exposure. Commissioner Randy Mason said the sheriff’s office and its vehicle operation are a primary driver of recent high claims and urged development of training, driver limits and other interventions so underwriters might reconsider the county in future cycles. Commissioners discussed options such as segmenting coverages (insuring autos separately), pursuing another property market option before an April 1st deadline, and cost‑sharing deductible exposure with departments as an incentive to reduce claims.

The board debated whether shifting responsibility for deductibles to department budgets would meaningfully reduce overall taxpayer cost; some commissioners urged development of risk‑reduction programs from the county's insurer and department heads. The broker said the insurer does offer risk‑management programs and the county will be provided contact information and resources for department heads.

Action taken: A motion to accept the proposed placement (referred to in the meeting transcript as “Ambridge”/“Enbridge” in different places) passed; commissioners recorded the vote as unanimous on the floor. The motion text and the vote tally were not recorded verbatim in the transcript. Commissioners also directed staff to continue market searches for alternate property options that might reduce deductibles and to set up claims‑handling meetings with the TPA.

What remains unresolved: The meeting transcript records uncertainty about the carrier name (appearing as both “Ambridge” and “Enbridge” in discussion) and about precise earned premium and cancellation terms for parts of the package; the broker said some excess or property pieces could be revisited April 1 if another market is found. The transcript also records a disagreement among commissioners about whether shifting deductible costs to department budgets would merely re‑allocate taxpayer dollars rather than reduce total county cost.

Ending: Commissioners approved the placement and asked the auditor’s office and the broker to schedule TPA onboarding and to circulate risk‑management contact details to department heads so departments can begin using offered loss‑reduction resources.