Laserfiche WebLink
establishing their joint coverage. Here, WCRP provided liability coverage of $10 million <br />to Clark County and other Pool members and, through its members, rejected Clark <br />County's tender of claims that arose nine years before it joined the Pool. In addition to <br />recouping the $10.5 million Clark County has paid to them, Davis and Northrop now <br />seek to recover an additional $24 million from the Pool on the County's and Slagle's <br />assigned claims. As the member counties in the Pool are ultimately liable (past <br />members, even Clark County, may be included) for the Pool's obligations (including <br />premiums charged by its reinsurers and excess insurers), they have a substantial <br />interest in convincing the Court to adhere to the Legislature's exemption of WCRP and <br />similarly situated pools from the duties and liabilities of an "insurer." <br />Self-insured counties that are not members of a Pool are also interested in <br />resisting the application of common law insurance principles to the settlement of claims <br />against them and their employees. A self-insured county should not be held to the <br />standards of a commercial insurer in deciding whether to defend and indemnify an <br />employee. Self-insured counties would face substantial exposure were the Court to <br />equate the statutory right to a defense and indemnity of county employees under RCW <br />4.96.041 to the right of an insured to a defense and indemnity under a commercial <br />insurance policy. Counties have statutory procedures for determining whether a county <br />employee is entitled to a defense and indemnity. Counties should be held to those <br />statutory procedures and should not be liable to claimants who have taken assignments <br />of claims from current or former employees alleging a breach of duties owed by an <br />insurer to an insured. <br />6. State in particular how the results sought would be of benefit to <br />counties. <br />The member counties that comprise a joint self-insurance pool would know that <br />their rights and liabilities are based on their contractual obligations under an <br />intergovernmental agreement, a pool's bylaws and the terms of joint self-insurance that <br />the counties themselves approve from year to year, rather than the open ended tort <br />liability imposed upon commercial insurers who put their own interests above those of <br />its policy holders. All counties, whether individually or jointly self-insured, would be <br />able to rely on the statutory obligations of defense and indemnity of current and former <br />employees, officers and agents in RCW 4.96.041 and the county's code, rather than the <br />expansive common law insurance obligations and remedies applicable to commercial <br />insurers. <br />7. Explain how a WSAC brief would add a new or different perspective to <br />the issues or issues. <br />The Court respects the point of view of the counties that would be primarily <br />affected by the Court's decision regarding application of insurance principles in cases of <br />governmental liability. <br />8. Give a brief summary of particular cases of interest, of which the <br />applicant is aware with citations. <br />WSAC Board of Director's Meeting February 3, 2016 Page 19 of 80 <br />