The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
After the automatic arm of a city trash truck malfunctioned and crushed the rear of his 2007 Toyota Camry, Sean Anderson said he was assured by city officials that Norfolk would pay for $2,800 in damages.
Five weeks went by, though, before the Colonial Place resident was told he was out of luck.
The city claimed "sovereign immunity" and is not paying the claim, he was told.
So Anderson reluctantly paid the $500 deductible under his USAA insurance policy, and the car is being repaired this week while he and his wife, Michele Gardner, are out of town on business.
"If this could happen to me, it could happen to anyone," he said. "What happens when a city trash truck totals the car of a family that can't afford to replace it?"
On Monday, after being told by a reporter of Anderson's deductible payment, City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko said the city agreed to reimburse him for the $500 deduct ible. "We did not realize his insurance policy had a deductible," Pishko said.
Pishko defended the city's decision not to pay the entire claim. The city is self-insured, meaning all claims are paid directly from taxpayer funds.
Sovereign immunity is a concept dating to English common law that government is exempt from most civil claims. The law is complicated, and at times cities pay liability claims.
For example, the city paid $7.5 million more than two years ago for a young man hit by a city truck while standing in the median. At the time the driver was commuting between two recreational facilities, an act, Pishko said, not entirely governmental in nature.
The driver of the trash truck was collecting refuse containers, an act that was governmental in nature, Pishko said, and subject to sovereign immunity.
Virginia Beach also invoked sovereign immunity recently, telling the family of a homeless man who was run over and killed by a trash truck on the beach that the city could not be held liable for the death because the driver was performing government business at the time of the accident. The man's family has announced an intention to file a civil suit in the death.
Contacted late Monday, Anderson said "I still think it's terrible. The $500 is nice. But what's going to happen to my car insurance rates? My rates are probably going to go up.
"I think the only reason they're paying $500 is to keep the media off their back."
Pishko denied that's the case, saying the city uses "judgment and discretion" when evaluating every liability claim.
He said sovereign immunity protects taxpayers when private insurance is available to pay. Allowing every claim "would in effect be a tax increase," he said.
"Here, it seems appropriate to pay the $500 deductible."
Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Monopolies are bad even in government
The city forces, requires, mandates that you pay for this trash service, automatically billed on your HRSD bill. You cannot opt out. Yet when they crash into your vehicle, they don't pay. We would be safer to go to the northern Virginia system of private companies doing the trash collection. Competition makes for better service. It does not cost much different yet they have insurance to pay if they crash into your car!
Virginia Pilot Wreckless!!
Is the Virginia Pilot going to hire a security guard for this persons home, since they just told a million readers that they are both away on business this week while their car is being repaird!
It seems city workers can wreck property, and kill people(homeless man in VA BEACH/trash truck) with no consequences, what gives?
Pay up Norfolk!
The city of Norfolk should pay the full damages. Instead, they are putting their liability off onto others, in this case USAA. The only reason the city agreed to cover Anderson's deductible is that the press got involved. I am surprised the city attorney thought anybody would buy that he didn't know Anderson's insurance has a deductible.
It was the city government's choice to be "self-insured".
I think it may be time for the city attorney to get a conscience and pay the full claim. If Anderson had damaged a city vehicle, the city would want paid for the damages whether Mr. Anderson had insurance or not.
Maybe the city should keep their equipment in good working order and there wouldn't be claims like this in the first place.
knowledge before commenting
So many comments here show great passion for the topic and no fundamental understanding of the issues, the law and the facts.
Your own insurance does not increase if you make a claim for damage caused by another.
This type of damage might be covered under "comprehensive." Many policies do not have deductibles for comprehensive--several years ago it was the norm not to have a deductable.
Sovereign immunity applies to the government acting in purely governmental capacity--such as waste disposal. Transportation such as light rail, and buses, is not "purely governmental" and therefore not covered by sovereign immunity.
Paying the man's deductible is inconsistent with the principle of SI but who's going to be so mean as to complain?
Every citizen, by being part of the community, pays for the services, as assumes the risk of injury that is not compensible due to SI. Those who don't like it, can move.
As a community, we could decide to limit or abolish SI; after all, we the people are the sovereign. On the plus side, those who are injured can be compensated. On the negative side, everyone else has to pay for it. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying, along woith the rest
Sovereign Immunity Pt.2
In regards to my earlier post-"The British claimed "sovereign immunity" when they abused colonists-Now, "We The People" are "armed"! And yes, I am implying just that very thought"
"We The People" are "armed"-with the "rights" to vote term limits for politicians. We can "vote" to end "sovereign immunity" and the colonial way of doing business in regards to the article at hand. That one or two people thought I advocated an "armed" response with a weapon truly shows your fear. I respectfully add that standing up for an individual's right to correct a wrong, perpetrated by the city(State)is an American trait. Yes, I agree a "jury" of "citizens" and not a "mob" or "vigilantes" should be able to "dispense" a monetary judgement. The "Sovereign Immunity" claim by the city (and Virginia Beach as well) is a throwback to times when people were oppressed by a government and had no recourse.
When I stated "We The People" are now "armed", it was with the meaning that "We" as individuals have "rights"! I wrote that to push an emotional button. Looks like I succeeded! Thank you to posters who understood my posting!
Makes one wonder what will
Makes one wonder what will happen if light rail should ever be involved in an accident at one of the roadway crossings because of a gate or other equipment malfunction. Sorry we ran over your vehicle, but we are the government and we have sovereign immunity? Got deductible? We'll pay that. Yeah, right.
Faulty Equipment-
If an individual was using faulty equipment wouldn't that individual be held liable & get a ticket or fined?
Initially, the city had told
Initially, the city had told Sean & Michele it would cover the repairs, though the city's appraiser estimated the damages for less than the independent repair shops estimated the damages. It wasn't until after following up, because they had not heard anything more, that the city said it was claiming "sovereign immunity". There is an exception to the "Sovereign Immunity" law and that's if the actions are considered "gross negligence", but, of course, in the letter sent from the city, it specifically stated that the city "could not establish" that this was case of gross negligence. So, what does constitute gross negligence? Obviously even killing someone, as in the case in VB, doesn't constitute gross negligence either. I understand wanting to deter frivolous lawsuits, but at what point does the city (and its employees) have to take responsibility for its actions? If you or I caused damage to someone's property, we would be responsible for the damages! What difference does it make if the person who caused the damage was "performing governmental functions"?
Sorry, Mr. Pishko, but you just failed Constitutional Law
Amendment V of the US Constitution (abridged to the relevant section):
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I'd say heavily damaging someone's car counts as taking private property. Mr. Pishko, your "Sovereign Immunity" stance is unconstitutional. And the insurance doesn't count either; that's still a private (company's) property.
i somewhat agree
Keeping in mind the big picture and the repercussions of having it the other way. In this law suit happy country of entitled people there would be inumerable suits agains the city or effectively our tax money pool which in turn would create higher taxes etc. He has insurance. I'm thinking USAA won;t rasie his rates due to this kind of incident. I feel all is fine in the end for the good of all.