Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Claims Property Damage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves and later reconsiders payment on claim alleging DPW truck sideswiped vehicle
Summary
A property damage claim from Quentin Peterson, who said a sanitation vehicle sideswiped his parked truck on Jan. 12, 2024, prompted a lengthy hearing. The committee initially approved a payment of $6,214.88 but later moved to reconsider and to an amended award (recorded in the transcript as $77,882.44).
A Milwaukee sanitation truck was found to have made contact with a parked vehicle belonging to Quentin Peterson, city staff and the claimant told the Judiciary & Legislation Committee on April 14. The committee first voted to grant the claim for $6,214.88, then later voted to reconsider and adopt a different award amount recorded in the meeting minutes.
City attorney staff said the fleet division's investigation found a sideswipe of the vehicle's left quarter panel on Jan. 12, 2024, and that a third-party appraiser valued repairs to that specific panel at $6,214.88. DPW fleet manager Anthony Gayfield confirmed the city's investigation admitted contact and liability for the corner panel damage.
Peterson told the committee his 2020 Ram had been "completely destroyed" and said the truck had been inoperable for a year. He reported damage to the vehicle's interior items (glasses and necklace), supplied multiple repair estimates and said he had filed documentation with the city's claims office. He also said he did not have insurance on the vehicle at the time.
Committee members noted the city retained a third-party adjuster (Coster Appraisers) that calculated $6,214.88 for the admitted panel damage; city staff said larger estimates submitted by Peterson appeared to include unrelated areas of the vehicle not accounted for by the fleet report. The city attorney's office said the committee could authorize settlement at the offered amount, and that Peterson would have the option to pursue suit if he declined the payment.
At an earlier point in the hearing the committee voted to grant the claim at $6,214.88 (roll call recorded as: Westmoreland ' Aye; Pratt ' Aye; Baumann ' Aye; Chambers ' No; Jackson ' Aye; motion passed 4-1). After extended discussion and the claimant's presentation of additional estimates, a member moved to reconsider the award and to adopt a revised payment figure. The motion to reconsider was granted and the subsequent motion recorded in the transcript as ordering payment of $77,882.44 (the committee's record shows the motion was made, heard and ordered at the meeting).
The city attorney's office told the committee standard practice is to present a settlement amount and an associated general release; if the claimant refuses the settlement and release, the city treats that as a denial for purposes of pursuing a claim in state court.
Why it matters: the item combined a clear admission of limited liability (corner panel) with disagreement over the appropriate scope and amount of damages. Committee members emphasized the difference between the third-party appraiser's ascertainable valuation for admitted damage and the claimant's broader estimates.
Next steps: the city attorney's office will transmit settlement paperwork for the amount the committee ordered. If Peterson declines the release and payment, he retains the ability to pursue judicial remedies in state court.
