Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deuel board renews insurance policy, declines wind/hail buy‑down amid large deductible increase
Summary
The Deuel School District 19‑4 board approved the district's insurance renewal July 14 but rejected a costly wind/hail deductible buy‑down, leaving the district exposed to a 1% wind/hail deductible that could amount to roughly $500,000 on the main complex. Staff will market the policy next year and monitor options.
The Deuel School District 19‑4 board voted July 14 to renew its district insurance portfolio — property, general liability, crime, commercial auto and umbrella/excess coverage — and opted not to purchase a wind/hail deductible buy‑down offered by the carrier.
Staff explained that market conditions have pushed carriers statewide to increase wind/hail deductibles. Under the renewal, property all‑peril and wind/hail deductibles rose from the district’s prior $2,500 level to a 1% of building‑limit deductible. For the district’s largest complex that translates to an exposure in the hundreds of thousands of dollars if a covered wind/hail event occurs.
The insurer offered a separate wind/hail ‘‘buy‑down’’ product that would reduce per‑occurrence deductibles to either $25,000 or $50,000 but would cost the district an additional ~$24,553–$28,314 in the first year. Board members discussed the trade‑off between paying the annual buy‑down premium and self‑insuring the larger deductible, and questioned maximum payout language and how the 1% figure is calculated relative to limits. Several members said the change reflected market‑wide trends rather than a district‑specific underwriting action.
After discussion the board voted to renew the existing policy (which had already taken effect July 1) and to decline the optional deductible buy‑down for now, citing cost and the low recent frequency of major wind/hail claims. Board members directed staff to go to market next year to explore competitive alternatives and to continue monitoring property valuations and risk mitigation measures.
The board also asked staff to clarify the carrier’s ‘‘maximum payable’’ language and to bring back precise comparative quotes if they pursue a buy‑down in future procurement.
