By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: June 2, 2012
The district can’t–or won’t–tell you how much was paid in insurance claim to four developers who sued the municipality in 2010.
The developers won’t say because of a possibe gag order on speaking about the case.
And the Municipal Insurance Association of BC (MIABC) won’t speak either, not even with a FOI.
So, was it $25,000, or $500,000, or was it $899,000 ? We might never know.
In 2010, four people sued the district for $899,000 claiming a district manager, who had the power over their development, was involved in a romantic relationship with a project opponent.
John Davey, Anthony Routley, Nancy Louise Routley, and Yasmin Haufschild had filed a statement of claim with Supreme Court of B.C. Dec. 18 alleging a district official, Mick Gottardi, “was the prime mover behind every attempt to identify and/or act upon a possible objection to the project.”
Court documents, and sources familar with the case, have informed the Reporter the claim was recently settled.
The Reporter tried to obtain more details about the case with a FOI request from the district, but the district deflected the query to MIABC.
The district seems to wash its hands off the matter by saying it paid MIABC a one-time deductible of $25,000, the maximum amount per claim that qualifies.
Robin Arthurs, the general manager of corporate services, said typically the district will forward the notice of claim to the insurer.
Once, it’s established that it’s an insurance claim–not a law suit—the district is no longer involved, she said.
“The analogy might be – if you get in a car accident with someone, you may pay a deductible, but ICBC handles any claims. You are no longer involved – ICBC – your insurer is and you are not involved in the settlement with the other party,” Arthurs explained.
While the analogy is helpful, it doesn’t explain how district got in an accident in the first place.
Now, the Municipal Insurance Association has flatly refused to reveal the details of that settlement, or for that matter anything at all.
Tom Barnes, the CEO of the insurance authority, said the information on insurance claims can’t be released.
“It is not our policy to disclose this type of information in order to protect private personal information and to adhere to the confidentiality of the litigation process,” said Barnes.
“The FOI legislation does not apply to our organisation,” he further added.
That is bad news for Squamish residents, who have every right to know how—and at what cost of time and money—municipal claims like these are handled.
The district has also refused to reveal details of how much it paid to the lawyers to fight cases over the past two years.
The district claims such information is private and confidential, even though it’s the tax-payer’s money that paid for the legal fees.
The Reporter requested the district to share infromation on this particular claim, assuimg that MIABC shares such information on claims that affect the district.
The district didn’t answer by press time.
Insurance authority CEO Tom Barnes email is tbarnes@miabc.org.
Try asking him how much was paid to settle the insurance claim with the above-mentioned developers.
May be he will tell you.
Larry McLennan says
Didn’t the claimants go to the Municipality initially? How was this handled and what, if any , costs were incurred relating to these complaints? That smell coming out of this one can’t be blamed on the recycling depot. Where was Council on this with regard to resolution ?What needless costs were incurred? Who within the Municipal civil service ,besides Mr. Gottardi , went along with an apparently inappropriate abuse of Municipal power ? Are they still employed within the Municipality ? If so, why ? Keep digging Gagandeep.
David says
There is some double-talk going on here. The insurance claim was necessary because of legal action brought against the District, if there is no lawsuit then there is no need for the insurance claim. The real issue is whether the lawsuit was fought in court, and if so, why the District did not win the case.
The legal fees charged to the District are a result of a contract between the District and whoever represented the District or provided legal advice. The charges should be made public because they are payments required for services rendered, in the same way as a contract for paving or repairs to waterworks are made public. Legal fees should be reported in the District’s financial reports and budgets as expenses that have to be funded.
It appears that our local government and/or employees are hiding behind a veil of secrecy. Why would they want to do this? My guess is that they do not want their own culpability made known.
Nate Dolha says
This must have been settled out of court, as all court judgements are a matter of public record. I would agree that something smells…
Don Patrick says
Let’s stop the conspiricy thories… this was likely an Errors and Ommissions class of claim… the claim would be made to the DOS, they would forward to their Insurer who has been paid a premium to defend… the Insurer takes it from there and does the investigation, etc. At the same time the claimant is setting up his bill of goods. The loss is usually arbritrated by the two parties and very seldom if ever go to the courts, probably too complicated for a judge. These policies usally have a high deductible, so the only monies out of the tax payer kitty is the annual premium (may not even increase as is dependent on total claims of the class) and the deductible amount. The insurer takes care of the legal expenses and the claim amount over the deductible. So why should the Insurer let its competitors in the industry know about the numbers ? In your business do you advertise to the world when you get a good or bad deal so your competitors can use caution..? come-on this is just another example of not knowing what is going on in the BIG picture. It can even be possible the DOS is not privy to the numbers… that is part of paying a third party to do the dirty work for you. Not much different in hiring consultants, the findings can be down loaded and you can stand back and play the game of “I did not have a thing to do with it”. The only difference is you have another report to store on the shelf.