Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Claim Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Common Council affirms committee recommendation to allow $20,644 claim payment after new insurance information
Summary
After hearing new information suggesting the claimant's insurer had paid a total-loss settlement, the council voted 8–7 to affirm the finance committee's recommendation to allow payment of a $20,644.56 claim submitted by Margaret A. Morgan.
The City of Racine Common Council voted on May 6 to affirm the finance and personnel committee's recommendation to allow a claim from a resident after new information about insurance reimbursement was presented to the full council.
The claim, filed as item 0339-25 and described in committee as a request for payment of $20,644.56 for vehicle damage, was the subject of conflicting recommendations at the finance committee meeting on April 28. The committee had recommended settlement, and the council motion before members on May 6 was to approve that committee recommendation.
During council discussion the city attorney told members the vehicle in question had been transferred to the claimant's insurer as a total loss and that the insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, had paid the claim. Council members debated whether payment by the claimant's insurer should preclude an additional payment by the city. "It appears to me...the actual loss was not $20,644," the city attorney said, but also acknowledged the office lacked full detail about the claimant's deductible.
After debate, the council voted to affirm the committee recommendation by a roll-call tally of 8 yes and 7 no. Council members who opposed allowing payment said the city should not create a double payment if the claimant already received compensation from an insurer; supporters argued the financial facts presented were incomplete and that the council could exercise judgment in a one-time exception.
The council recorded the committee recommendation as affirmed. The city attorney noted staff had not received a formal subrogation or reimbursement demand from the insurer, and committee staff said the new insurance data arrived to council staff after the April 28 committee meeting.
No additional ordinance changes resulted from the vote; council members asked that staff document the insurance payments and any subrogation steps in the claim file.
