Matthews explains her opposition to paying some pothole claims

At the most recent City Council meeting, two councilors, Kate Matthews and Kevin McCauley, voted against paying a couple more claims related to a South Street pothole. Matthews explained in detail her opposition. Here is her prepared statement about it:

I will be voting against approval of this Claims Report, and I want to take a moment to explain to you why I am doing so. 

At our last City Council meeting, this body voted to pay a claim that arose out of a car versus pothole incident on South and Union Street on March 13, 2010, brought by Ms. Santorso.  For reasons that I have stated previously, I voted against paying that pothole claim, because I believed that the Claims Committee ignored the relevant procedure in making their recommendation to pay the claim, and because I objectively believed that the City was not liable to this particular claimant. 

This Claims Report includes two new claims that have arisen out of incidents involving the same pothole, during the same time period.  They allege essentially the same facts.  In my opinion, the Claims Committee recommended that these two claims be paid because of the previous decision that had been made regarding Ms. Santorso’s claim.  That decision created a line in the sand, and now the Committee has become entrenched in their position. 

This is a problem. 

Claimants have 90 days from the date of the underlying incident to notify the City of Bristol of their claim.  If a claimant brings his claim on the 100^th day, or even the 91^st day, the City will have no liability.  This is based on State law.

Claims on this particular South Street/ Union Street pothole will not close until June 13^th.  As of this evening, therefore, there are still five days for a claimant to make a claim regarding this pothole.  The City has compromised our position by paying Ms. Santorso’s claim, and now we have a domino effect taking place.  Claims for incidents that occurred at this pothole after Ms. Santorso’s claimed incident will likely be paid, and claims for incidents that occurred prior to Ms. Santorso’s claimed incident will be denied.  Paying Ms. Santorso’s claim during the middle of the claims period has resulted in a situation where we have arguably admitted liability for all claims arising during a certain period, but we have no idea of who those claimants might be, what their particular claims are, or how significant their alleged damages are. We are flying blind.

For example, in this scenario that befalls us this evening, the two claimants after Ms. Santorso have small claims, totaling approximately $1,100.  Consider, however, what would have happened if one of those claimants had alleged that they had suffered a personal injury, such as to their back or neck?  That claimant would have demanded a lot more from the City – potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It is easy to see that making claims decisions during the middle of the claims period can easily cause us to shoot ourselves in the foot. 

My proposal is this:  the claims committee should adopt a policy whereby, when a particular claim comes in, we ascertain the date of the alleged underlying incident, and then table a decision on the matter until 91 days from that date.   During this 91 day period, we will hold our usual hearings and invite claimants to explain their claims to us.  During this 91 day period, we will be able to determine the full spectrum of all possible claimants, so that we can understand the magnitude of the claims that are being asserted against the City, and make fully informed decisions regarding those claims.  We will have the full benefit of knowing that all potential claimants have been identified.  We will have had an opportunity to hear from the claimants if they wish to speak with us, and to consult with relevant departments, such as public works, or the police, or the water department, to better understand what our potential liability is in a given matter.

This proposal is a fiscally responsible, no-cost solution to a problem that has the potential to cost the City a tremendous amount of money.

Although I have already consulted with City Attorney Richard Lacey and he has indicated to me that he sees no legal obstacle to implementing this proposal, I would refer this question to the Corporation Counsel’s office for further investigation, and request that they report back to the City Council by the next City Council meeting.

******* 
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com