CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

317 Gordon Noble, Kindler and Lauccr, in response to question regarding � the ac of rating of Pur�tan and Drake in the current edition of Best's Insurance Guide, advised that Drake represents a change of name from Seaboard Surety which was purchased recently by a group of international insurance people and is an admitted company in California. ' He further advised that Puritan was formerly known as Manhattan Fire Marine Insurance Company, was previously rated by Best and has exactly the same membership. Mr. Noble explained that Best does not rate until a name change has been in effect for five years and both Puritan and Drake are recent names changes. C H Re�fenrath, Borring-Reifenrath-Greenwold-Vreeburg, 845 Marshall Street, advise that he will confirm in writing statements made on the telephone on June 23. Lengthy discussion continued and Mr. Ference and Mr. De Vere corrmiented and replied to question regard�ng details of each proposal, provision � for legal costs, the manner in which any large claim would be paid in the event it was necessary to do so; the possibility of increased � costs of being self-insured; the likelihood of similar increases in • the retrospective rating program, the desirability of establishing � a good training program in risk management; the difference in exposure by the City between $50,000 and $100,000 self-insured retention; ' whether or not the additional payment for the $50,000 difference in retention �s reasonable and equitable; the importance of credentials in analysis of the proposals, the good reputation and experience with local political jurisdictions in California of Kindler and Laucci and R. L. Kautz, the desire of Councii to have had adequate informat�on on all of the agencies invol'ved in each proposal to substantiate the recortmendation of the consultant; the possibility of re-establishing ' the Insurance Committee of Council members in order that proposals may be given thorough review before 6eing presented to Council for consideration; and concern a6out the extent of exposure of the City in the new program. C. H. Reifenrath (see above) referred to his letter of June 23 urging that the Clty continue with the Industrial Indemnity retrospect�ve ' rating plan carr�ed by his company at present. Mr. Reifenrath sug- gested that if it is th'e desire of Council to be self-insured, then he urges acceptance of his proposal for $50,000 self-insured retention. He comnented and replied to questions concerning his proposal and ' that of Kindler and Laucci and corrected certain figures. Gordon Noble (see above) advised that his company could have subm�tted a proposal for $50,000 self-�nsured retention, but after reviewing i the City's experience, believed the $100,OQ0 self-insured retention I would be safe, more economical, and most appropriate. Mr Noble � described M s company's experience with public entities in Caliform a � and that of R L. Kautz, the proposed administrator, noting that ; administrative service is the key to a successful self-insurance ' program. In response to question, Mr. Noble advised that most claims are under $50,000 and that there does not appear to be any increase in claims between $50,000 and $100,000. MOTION: Councilman Bury moved, seconded by Councilman Barrett,�to accept the proposal of Boring-Reifenrath-Greenwold-Vreeburg for $10,000,000 excess of $50 000 self-insured Retention (ad�usted figure - $382,9�7) ' � -6- Reg.Mtg. � ; ' 6/27/77