Great Basin Insurance reviews Klamath County coverage; workers’ comp experience mod to rise, firm recommends staying on two‑year retro plan

Bill Gilmore of Great Basin Insurance briefed the Klamath County Board of Commissioners on the county’s insurance and risk profile, outlining recent claims trends, projected changes to the county’s experience modification factor for workers’ compensation, and several options for reducing future premiums.

Gilmore said the county’s workers’ compensation experience-mod is projected to rise from 0.88 to 1.06 because older, better years are rolling off the calculation while more costly years move in. He reported the county’s current claims-cost trend at roughly $81,000 for the year compared with about $277,000 in the prior year, and identified strains, slips and falls, and knee injuries as recurring claim types. He also noted that about 65% of claims involve first‑year employees, which he called a potential focus area for safety and training.

On property and liability, Gilmore said Klamath County’s auto lines were performing at or below pool averages but that general liability was above average this year because of one large claim that will raise the county’s loss experience and premiums for the next renewal. He said CIS caps claim counts for rating purposes at $90,000 per claim when calculating some metrics, so very large single losses still materially affect rates.

The presentation covered deductible-options analysis: the county currently carries a $25,000 general-liability deductible and a $50,000 property deductible. Gilmore said the $25,000 GL deductible has produced about $669,000 in premium savings since 2022, though some of that amount remains reserved against claims and the “net” realized savings to date is lower. He proposed obtaining quotes showing the effect of raising deductibles (for example, a $50,000 GL deductible or a $100,000 property deductible) and running modeled scenarios for auto and equipment schedules.

Gilmore recommended continuing on the county’s two‑year SAFE retro plan, saying it has reduced the county’s long‑term costs compared with a non‑retro commercial placement and that SAFE actively works to reduce reserves. He also proposed that the county engage a Risk Management Team (RMT) provided by HUB at no additional cost; the RMT would work with county staff and with SAFE to analyze claims, walk worksites, provide OSHA‑style recommendations and help reduce future exposure. The board indicated support for starting the RMT application and meeting scheduling.

Additional topics included: - Equipment and schedule: Gilmore said the county has many items scheduled on property coverage, including about 37 pieces of equipment valued under $50,000 that the county could consider removing from the scheduled property list (self‑insuring lower‑value items) to generate premium savings. - Vehicle counts and auto exposure: the presentation differentiated vehicles covered for comprehensive and collision vs. liability only and noted both overall numbers and per-unit average values. - Drone coverage: county-owned drones may be covered under CIS but the county should submit pilot and policy information; Gilmore said a drone operations policy and application may be required to ensure coverage. - Cyber, pesticide pollution and aviation: Gilmore said the county could request side‑by‑side quotes for cyber (Cowbell vs. CIS) and was awaiting pesticide and pollution quotes; the county should confirm aviation exposure and whether the sheriff’s department aircraft use remains active.

Timeline and next steps: Gilmore said the county should expect CIS quotes by late May or early June and recommended a follow‑up meeting in June after the July 1 renewal to make final coverage decisions. Board members asked him to run deductible scenarios, provide equipment‑schedule options, and proceed with the RMT application. No formal vote was taken during the briefing.