HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.D.1. Consider Policy on Sanitary Sewer Backup Damage Claims
'6. D. J.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Policy on Sanitary Sewer Backup Damage Claims
DATE: October 20, 2009
INTRODUCTION:
At the September 9, 2009 City Council meeting, under City Council consensus, the City Council
directed staff to consider a policy on negotiating sewer backup claims. This memo will address
the directive.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Shakopee has insurance for liability claims with the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT). For sanitary sewer backup damage claims, the City follows a
procedure in which the property owner submits a claim to our insurance company. Claims are
processed by the LMCIT and a determination of liability is done by an insurance adjustor.
The LMC has asked for a formal Sanitary Sewer Policy for the purpose of performing good
maintenance practices for the sanitary sewer system. The City adopted Resolution No. 6217,
which adopted a Sanitary Sewer Policy and established maintenance criteria.
The LMCIT has recommended this policy and procedures to limit liability and ensure coverage
by the LMC. By following the policy and performing good maintenance on the sewer system,
the City may be found not liable for damage in a sewer backup situation in the City's sewer
main. The reason being is that the City cannot control what is put in the system by users.
Attached to this memo is an informational document from the LMC and as it pertains to liability
claims from sewer backups.
The recommended practice and procedure that staff follows in a sewer backup situation is as
follows:
1. Respond to the backup and open the blocked area as far as possible and do not admit to
any liability.
2. Notify the property owner to contact their insurance company and to submit a claim to
our insurance company, if desired.
3. Have the LMCIT adjustor review the facts of the sewer backup and maintenance records
to determine if the City is liable.
4. Insurance adjustor makes the determination and notifies the City and property owner.
5. If City is liable, the insurance pays damages.
6. If City is not liable, the option for property owners is to the take the City to court or until
recently, the City has offered settlement payment agreements to avoid court.
The recent payment of damages, in which the City was not liable, has prompted the directions of
forming a policy on settlement payments in the future.
For consideration of a policy, in regards to this issue, staff sees the following:
1. Do not offer settlement payments and allow the claim to go to court to determine if the
City is liable or not.
2. Approve a settlement payment on a case by case basis and use the recent settlement as a
basis for payment determination.
3. Purchase the no fault insurance from the LMC that was mentioned in June. Council
elected not to go with the additional insurance, due to the cost per year versus number of
claims per year.
Staff believes Option No.1 is the fairest policy when considering property owners who purchase
private sanitary sewer backup coverage on their insurance policy and those who do not. Options
No.2 and No.3 would not provide any incentive for some owners to purchase insurance and
allow the City to offer a settlement payment or purchase a no fault insurance policy. Staff did
check with our insurance carrier and an endorsement for sewer backup coverage for a minimum
$5,000 coverage and $250.00 deductible would cost approximately $40.00 per year. Also, if a
homeowner purchases the coverage, the insurance company would probably go after the City and
its insurance company to collect for damages. Property owners who do not have insurance
would be on their own to take the City to court to determine liability.
Staff did check with other cities and most follow a no payment policy and rely on the insurance
adjustor's determination on whether the City is liable or not. One main reason for this is that the
LMCIT has to defend the City and pay for any damages the court may decide against the City.
One city (Burnsville) has the no fault insurance to pay for sewer backups even if the city is not
liable. Staff did present the no fault insurance option to the council on June 16, 2009.
In the cities that staff checked, no city has a written policy on settlement payments. Previously,
staff did recommend to review possible settlement payments on a case by case basis. Attached
to this memo is the settlement payment procedure approved recently by Council.
In summary of this item, the LMC would recommend allowing claims to court to determine
liability. Also, the practices provide incentive to property owners to purchase private insurance
coverage and treats those with or without insurance the same.
Staff does not recommend establishing a written policy on negotiating settlement payments.
However, the City could continue with a case by case basis and use the past practice as a
guideline.
Staff would like further discussion and direction from Council on this item before finalizing
proceeding to establish any written policy. Finally, attached is a brochure on sanitary sewer
backups and storm water information that staff has prepared for distribution as an insert to
Shakopee Public Utilities bills.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Settlements which are paid after the City is found to be liable are covered by the LMCIT
(less deductible).
If the City is not liable, and a payment is directed by the City to be paid by the LMCIT, the
City's claims "experience" and subsequent premiums will increase. Settlements which are
negotiated outside of the normal process are the responsibility of the City; City payments
will then come from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Ultimately, payments from that fund
impacts all sanitary sewer ratepayers throughout Shakopee.
AL TERNA TlVES:
1. Discuss options of handling sewer backup damage claims and provide direction to staff
on a formal policy or not.
2. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss options of handling sewer backup damage claims and provide direction to staff on a
formal policy or not.
~tbi
Public Works Director
ENGR/2009-PROlECTS/2009-COUNCD.JSEWER-BACKUP-POLICY
834 Scott Street
Settlement Payment Procedure
Claim Amount - $2,500.00 (City deductible) and at 50% of Remaining
Amount for Payment.
Claim Amount $12,900.00
City Deductible $ 2,500.00
$12,800 - $2500.00/2 = $5,200.00
Settlement Payment = $5,200.00
Offered and Accepted
REMINDER:
Property owners are responsible for the mainte-
nance, repair and cleaning of the sanitary sewer
service line from the house to the City main line.
For more information, please contact the City of SHAKOPEE
Shakopee Public Works Department at 952-233-
9550 or visit the City's website at
www.ci.shakopee.mn.us
Public Works
For more information cleanups, visit the Department
on
MDH's website at www.health.state.mn.us 400 Gorman Street
....................................................................... (952) 233-9550
A Friendly Storm Water Reminder: www.ci.shakopee.mn.us
In urban areas, storm water carries phosphorous
and other pollutants directly into Minnesota's
water resources through the storm drainage sys-
tem. Storm water does not go through a treat-
ment facility, but rather directly into our lakes, Sanitary Sewer BackuDS
rivers and wetlands. Common pollutants include:
. Phosphorous: From tree leaves, grass clip- What You Should Know
pings, soil erosion, fertilizer and pet and wild- and How You Should
life waste.
. Sediment: From exposed soil on construction Protect Yourself
sites, sparse lawns and unprotected garden
beds located close to hard surfaces like streets,
sidewalks and driveways.
. Bacteria: From pet and wildlife waste and
failing septic systems.
. Toxins: From oil, paint, cleaners, etc. spilled
on streets, sidewalks and driveways (or even
dumped directly down storm drains).
~
Occasionally a blockage in a sewer line will General Cleanup Continued: Carpetinl!':
result in a backup of sewage into a home. If The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) . Pull up waterlogged carpet immediately to
you experience a backup, immediately contact suggests the following to help your cleanup ef- prevent further floor damage.
the Shakopee Public Works Department at forts:
952-233-9550 (Mon-Fri, 6:30 am-2:30 pm) or . Carpet padding cannot be saved. Remove
the Scott County Dispatch at 952-445-1411 . Use outside air to dry your home. them and throwaway.
after business hours. . Open windows and doors and use an exhaust . Attempt to save carpet and rugs only if
The information provided in this brochure fan to remove moist air from inside. replacement is expensive.
will hopefully help answer the basic questions . Use a room de-humidifier and empty it often. . Clean and dry your floors thoroughly be-
about what to do if you experience a backup.
. Wear a mask to prevent inhaling contami- fore re-carpeting.
Insurance:
nated dust, especially if you have allergies. Floors:
The City is not automatically responsible Consult your physician if you have questions.
when a backup occurs. There are many rea- . Remove any moisture and debris.
sons for backups which the City cannot con- . Open, clean, decontaminate and thoroughly . Scrub floors and woodwork within 24-48
trol. For example, people dumping inappro- dry cavities in walls, floors and ceilings. hours using a stiff brush, water, detergent
priate items such as grease or diapers into . Release any water that has been trapped in and disinfectant.
the system can create a blockage. Tree roots walls, ceilings or floor cavities.
can grow into lines and obstruct them. The . Allow all wood to dry thoroughly.
City is responsible only if it was negligent in . Walls must be allowed to dry from the inside Furniture:
maintaining its main sewer lines. out.
Sometimes 'Your homeowners insurance . Remove moisture and debris from all sur- . Dispose of upholstered furniture if is has
been exposed to water or contaminated
will Da'Y for the costs associated with faces and get surface materials dry within material.
sewer backuDs. However. not all Dolicies 24-48 hours.
have this coverage and 'You should check . Remove all interior wall finishing materials . Clean, rinse and disinfect wood furniture.
with 'Your agent. and insulation. . Place wood furniture outside in a shady
If you feel damage occurred as a direct result . Dispose of any wet insulation, moist plaster, area so it will dry slowly.
of the City's negligence, you can file an insur-
ance claim by calling the City. wallboard and paneling. Food:
General Cleanup: . If you think you have materials containing Throw out any opened food or packaged foods
asbestos, call the MDH at 651-201-4620. that are not waterproof. Commercially
It is important to begin cleanup as soon as canned foods can be salvaged if the labels are
possible to minimize health risks. For large . If any materials are still wet or moist after removed and the cans thoroughly washed.
cleanups, you should call a cleaning service 24-48 hours, assume they have mold growing Disinfect them by wiping the entire surface
(your insurance agent might have suggestions on them. with a laundry bleach and water mixture,
on whi"" """"'" to ..,). For i . then rinse in clear water. Home canned foods
""all& cl,annp, yon <= clean e;tfil should be washed and disinfected. The jars
yourself, use a solution of 2 table- , " should then be boiled for 10 minutes before
spoons chlorine bleach to 1 gallon using.
of water.
,
.,'\ ~". .
~
...---' ", RESOLUTION NO. 6217
( ")
A Resolution Adopting A Sanitary Sewer Policy
For The City Of Shakopee
WBEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a written policy on the sanitary sewer
system for the City of Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, a Sanitary Sewer Policy has been prepared and was reviewed by the City
Council at its April 5, 2005 Council meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That the Sanitary Sewer Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto is hereby
adopted.
2. This policy shall become effective Apri119. 2005.
Adopted in Oft! :/J.e; session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this J9ifr dayof ~Atf' ,2005.
. ,
r~kd~
or of the tyofShakopee
ATTEST:
n !Iff) di ~
'~~d10 , 't:U!/!4
~ itj Clerk
ENGRlEM?LOYllEFOLDERlPPENlolINCITONlCOUNCIlIRBS6217
l..., ......
.~ ~..
J
SA.NITARY SEWER POLICY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
(-...,
1. Purpose
The purpose oftms policy is to provide the City of Shakopee's procedures for
maintaining its sanitary sewer system. These procedures are necessary to prevent sewer
backups into homes and businesses and the natural environment. Maintenance also
protects and extends the life of the City's sanitary sewer system. The City will provide
such maintenance in a safe and cost effective manner, keeping in mind safety, budget,
personnel and environmental concerns. The City will use city employees, equipment
and/or private contractors to conduct this maintenance.
II. Routine Maintenance and Inspection
1- Sanitary Sewer Lines -
a. Scope of City's Responsibility- The City will maintain the city's
sanitary sewer lines. Private property owners are responsible for the
maintenance of the private lines from the city's mai..l1line to any
buildings.
b. Schedule - The City will clean every sanitary sewer line every three
years.
c. Problem Area - This is defIned as an area that has had a sewer backup,
blockage or a known problem such as grease accumulation or shallow
slope. This area will be cleaned twice a year for the first year. If there
are no further problems, it will be cleaned once the second year and
then to a regular schedule the third year.
d. Equipment - Lines will be cleaned with ajetter.
e. Televising Inspection - The lines will be inspected by television
camera every 10 years. Any lines that are located on a street where a
street maintenance project is planned will be inspected prior to those
projects. Camera inspection will also be available to inspect lines
where there are possible problems.
2. Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations
a. Schedule - The City will maintain the lift stations that the City is
responsible for annually using specific maintenance that is reasonable
and recommended. The maintenance is reflected in the checklists
developed for each lift station.
....
i
\
,.
. '" ~':
" b. Electrical Components - An electrician will be hired annually to
r '~'" inspect and maintain the electrical components of the lift stations.
(
c. Flow Meters - The flow meters at the lift stations will be checked on a
weekly basis to ensure that the lift stations are working properly and to
detect any problems in the system.
III. Emergency Response
1. Definition - An emergency response occurs in response to a call from
citizens, fellow employees; or an alarm that indicates that there is a possible
problem in the sanitary sewer system.
2. Response - After receiving notice of a possible problem, an employee will
respond and determine ifthere is a problem in the city's system. If there is, he
or she will remedy it based on accepted procedures. If necessary, the city
employee will obtain assistance from other city employees or outside
contractors such as electricians or engineers.
IV. Inf1ow/Infiltration
1. Definitions - Inflow is where storm water is misdirected into sanitary sewer
system through intentional connections such as sump pumps and roof leaders.
Infiltration is where storm and ground water get into the sanitary sewer system
/ ..--'. through cracks or leaks in the sewer pipes or manholes. Inflow and
. ~ infiltration can lead to backups, overflows and unnecessary and expensive
......
treatment of storm water.
2. Inflow - To reduce inflow, the City has developed a program to eliminate
illegal connections to the sanitary sewer system. This includes enforcement of
the ordinance banning such connections and public education to encourage
voluntary compliance.
3. Infiltration-To reduce infiltration, the City employees will annually inspect
manholes and repair any that contribute to tbis problem. The sewer lines are
maintained and inspected pursuant to Sectio~ II ofthis policy.
V. Training
The City will provide training on a regular basis to employees that will be
invo Ived in the routine maintenance and the emergency response on the procedures to
follow and the on how to use the proper equipment.
VI. Work Schedule for City Employees
( ;
....~,..,.,
,
b ~ ..,
'/ f" ~
,
( City employees will be expected to work eight-hour shifts. In emergencies,
employees sometimes have to work in excess of eight-hour shifts. However, because of
budget and safety concerns employees may be limited in how long they work.
VII. Weather Conditions
Sewer maintenance operations will be conducted only when weather conditions
do not endanger the safety of city employees and equipment. Factors that may delay
sewer maintenance operations include; severe cold, flooding, rain, snow and wind.
VIII. Documentation
The City will document all of its inspection, maintenance and emergency
responses for its sanitary sewer system. The City will also document any circumstan.ces
where something has occurred that limits its ability to comply with this policy. These
records will be kept in accordance with the City's record retention schedule.
/.....
I
.\,
.....
r )
'.
(0 G)
LEAGUE Of CONNECTING & INNOVATING
MINNESOTA S\ NeE 1<)13
ClTI ES
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
WHEN LMCIT DENIES A LIABILITY CLAIM
A scenario
A water main breaks and your city's sewer system backs up into several homes causing major
damage. Or someone falls and is injured on a city sidewalk. Or a tree falls in a windstorm and
damages a car. A citizen has a loss and is looking to the city to pay for it. Your city has liability
coverage through LMCIT, so you report the claim to LMCIT - and the claim is denied. City
officials quickly hear from angry citizens demanding to know why LMCIT won't pay for such
losses and what the city is going to do about it.
Background
The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) provides liability coverage for over 800
Minnesota cities. LMCIT is not an insurance company - it is a cooperative self-insurance
organization of cities. The idea behind LMCIT is that rather than paying premiwns to an insurance
company, the cities pool those funds and use them to cover claims. Any funds LMCIT collects
from its members that are not needed to cover losses or expenses are returned to member cities as
dividends. LMCIT has returned over $191 million in dividends to its member cities since 1987.
When LMCIT denies a liability claim, it is usually not an issue of coverage - i.e. whether or not
the city's LMCIT liability coverage covers the claim. Rather, the issue is liability; that is, is the
city legally liable for the damages of each particular claim?
About liability
When a third party makes a claim against the city and the city submits that claim to LMCIT, the
key issue is liability. It's important to remember that the city isn't automatically liable simply
because the injury occurred on city property, or because city equipment or personnel were
involved.
It's very much an over-simplification, but, in general, for the city to be liable for someone else's
damages, three conditions must be met:
1. The city must have been negligent. That is, the city must have done something it shouldn't
have done, or failed to do something it should have done.
2. The damages must have been caused by the city's negligence.
3. It must not be one ofthe areas in which the city is immune from liability.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 1-15 LJNIVUtSITY AVE. WEST PHON (: (65 I ) 281.1200 I:,\X: (651) 281-[298
INSURANCE TRUST ST. l'AlIL fvtK 55103.2llH Totl. FREt: (SOOl 925-1 122 W,ll: WWW.I.MC.ORG
When the city reports a liability claim to LMCIT then, the key issue for LMCIT's claims staff is
whether the city is legally liable for the damages that are being claimed. Sometimes it's very clear
from the facts that the city is liable. In such cases, the adjuster's job is to pay the claimant a fair
settlement of the damages as quickly as possible. In other cases, it may be very clear that the city
is not liable, in which case the adjuster will deny liability and decline to offer any settlement.
In many cases though, it may not be obvious whether the city is liable. The facts may be unclear
or disputed; it may be debatable whether or not the city acted negligently; other parties' negligence
(including the claimant's) may be involved; there may be questions about what really caused the
damages; and so on. It's harder to generalize about these cases. Depending on the particular facts
and circumstances and how likely it seems that the city will ultimately be held liable, LMCIT's
claims staff mayor may not attempt to negotiate a compromise settlement in these kinds of cases.
Ultimately, of course, evaluating and deciding on liability is what the court system is for. If a
claimant disagrees with LMCIT's denial of a claim, the claimant can bring the issue to the courts.
If that happens, it's LMCIT's responsibility to pay for the cost of defense and to pay the damages
the court awards against the city.
One final note. Legally, t.i.e burden is on the person making the claim to prove t.i.at the defendant
is liable. In other words, it's the claimant's responsibility to show that the city is liable - not the
city's responsibility to show that the city isn't liable. That doesn't mean that LMCIT's adjusters
will simply sit back and do nothing, waiting for the claimant to assemble and present the evidence.
The LMCIT adjuster's job is to investigate the claim, collect the relevant facts and information,
and make a reasonable evaluation of whether the city is liable. It does mean, though, that if that
investigation doesn't produce good evidence to show that the city is liable, LMCIT's position will
be to deny city liability. Keep in mind too that when LMCIT denies liability on a claim, it
shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as saying that the damage is the claimant's own fault.
Why does lMCIT stick to a legal liability standard in deciding whether or not to pay
a liability claim?
No one - neither city officials, nor LMCIT staff - enjoys telling a citizen that the city is not
responsible for their damages because their problem was not caused by city negligence. But if we
apply the standard oflegalliability, sometimes that's exactly what we have to say.
Sometimes that means that the city officials will hear complaints from an angry citizen. The
reaction is very understandable: I've beeninjured, and it was the city's tree (or sidewalk or sewer
or whatever) and I didn't do anything wrong. From a political standpoint, it would sometimes be a
lot easier to simply make a payment to the damaged party, even though legally the city isn't liable
for that payment. However, there are at least three good reasons why it wouldn't be appropriate
for LMClT to do so:
. First, the funds LMCIT uses to pay claims are public funds that are really the joint property of
LMCIT's member cities. Because we are dealing with public funds held by LMCIT in trust,
we have a duty to ensure that those funds are paid out only when legally owed. To do
otherwise would amount to making a gift ofthose public funds to a private individual.
2
<
. Second, the funds LMCIT uses to pay claims really belong jointly to all ofLMCIT's member
cities. LMCIT is simply holding the money in trust for these members. Each member city has
the right to expect that LMCIT will pay those funds out only if the money is in fact legally
owed.
. Finally, we have to be concerned about setting a precedent. IfLMCIT were to make a payment
on one such claim to one person in one city, LMCIT would have to be prepared to do so for
every claimant in every member city that faces a similar situation.
What if we disagree with the LMCIT adjuster's determination?
There's often a good deal of judgment involved in evaluating liability, and it's certainly possible
that city officials may disagree or have questions about the LMCIT adjuster's e\ialuation and
conclusions. Those disagreements can be in either direction; it could be a case where you think
that a claim LMCIT has denied should be paid, or a case where you think a claim LMCIT plans to
pay should be denied.
The first thing to do is to talk with the adjuster. If there are facts or information that the adjuster
isn't aware of, or ifthere are issues that s/he hasn't investigated which you feel should be, give the
adjuster a call. It's not the adjuster'sjob to do everything possible to either deny or to pay a claim;
the adjuster's job is to try to get it right.
In some cases, you may still have concerns or questions after talking with the adjuster. If so,
please call Doug Gronli, LMCIT Claims Manager, at (651) 281-1279, Pete Tritz at (651) 281-1265
or Ann Gergen at (651) 281-1291.
We'll be glad to review the claim to make sure that we're comfortable with the position the
adjuster has taken on LM CIT' s behalf, or to modify that position if it's appropriate.
If LMCIT has denied liability on a claim, and the city believes it should be paid, can
the city pay the claim itself, using the city's own funds?
City officials may feel it's appropriate to pay a claim denied by LMCIT out of city funds. They
may feel it is the city's responsibility to take care of its citizens, regardless oflegal liability, or
they may simply and understandably feel sympathy for the claimant's situation. Obviously, the
city council is responsible for the city's funds and has the power to decide when and how those
funds should be spent. But while it's clearly the council's call, the city also needs to think about
some of the same issues that LMCIT has to consider.
One important question, of course, is whether this is an appropriate and authorized use of city
funds. We'd suggest that cities discuss this with the city attorney before making a payment in
these kinds of circumstances.
Another important issue is the precedent the city would set by making a voluntary payment in a
particular case. Once the city has made a payment in one circumstance, it would be very difficult
not to do so again for the next citizen who's in a similar circumstance. Depending on the size and
3
,
number of such future claims, the total cost to the city could be much greater than the amount in
question on this one claim.
While it is, of course, up to the council to decide what to do, in many cases a better solution may
be to focus on solving the problems that have resulted in claims against the city; and to provide
citizens with the information they need to protect themselves from loss.
LMCIT is here to help
If you receive questions from citizens or the press, or if you have questions regarding your city's
coverage, your city's liability, LMCIT's investigation of the claim, or any related area of concern,
please call the LMCIT staff. We'll do everything we can to answer your questions, to get you the
infQuuatiol1-y:.ou_need,_ and,. ifnecessary,_to_correctan~,-mistakes-or- problems_there_may_be._____________.__ -~ .-
Dealing with a denied claim can be a difficult process, especially in times of community hardship.
If you have any questions about the information contained in this article, or any other concerns
related to LMCIT, please call Doug Gronli, Ann Gergen, or Pete Tritz at the numbers shown on
the previous page, or toll-free at (800) 925-1122.
Pete Tritz 10/23/07
4
,
,
Sewer Backup Liability Losses
Sewer claims comprise about 13 percent of all IV ~
liability loss costs. The number of claims has Sewer Backuns at a Glance
remained fairly steady, averaging about 564 claims From 2005-2008 sewer backup costs
per year, or 21 percent of all incurred liability were mostly attributable to damages.
claims. Claims comprised:
. 13 percent of aJ1liability costs
Loss costs in each ofthe last five years have been . 1 percent of all liability expenses
more than $1 million, with most costs associated . 25 percent of all liability damages
with damages. Sewer backups made up 25 . 21 percent of all liability claims
percent of all liability damages from both 2001- ~
2004 and 2005-2008.
Total Incurred liability Damages Total Incurred Liability Damages I
2005-2.008 at 3-31-09 2001-2004 at 3-31-09
Admin E&O
2%
Employment
14%
Admin E&O
3%
Sewer liability costs during 2005-2008 averaged $1.7 million per year, and $1.2 million from 2001
to 2004. Costs surpassed the $2 million mark during 2005, in large part due to three claims with
significant damages: one city had three homes affected by a large rainfall where water entered the
sanitary system through a damaged manhole; another city had nine homes damaged as a result of
city sewer flushing activities; and the other had a large sewer backup loss due to lack of maintenance
and grease in the main line. Total damages for these three claims were nearly $400,000.
Sewer Backup
Incurred Costs at 3-31-09
$2,500,000 800
$2,000,000 '^
600 .s
..!!!
$l,Soo,ooO <..l
....
400 <>
$1,000,000 '-
"
.c
$500,000 200 ~
2:
$0
'01 '02 '03 '04 'OS '06 '07 '08 '09
Iil!iBt Incurred Damages ~Incurred Expenses -Number of Claims
Page 10 of20