|
<br />
<br />City of Sunny Isles Beach
<br />18070 Collins Avenue
<br />Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160
<br />(305) 947-0606 City Hall
<br />(305) 949-3113 Fax
<br />(305) 947-2150 Building Department
<br />(305) 947-5107 Fax
<br />
<br />City Commission
<br />Norman S. Edelcup, Mayor
<br />Lewis J, Thaler, Vice Mayor
<br />Roslyn Brain, Commissioner
<br />Gerry Goodman, Commissioner
<br />George "Bud" Scholl, Commissioner
<br />
<br />Rick Conner, City Manager
<br />Hans Ottinot, City Attorney
<br />Jane A. Hines, CMC, City Clerk
<br />
<br />MEMORANDUM
<br />
<br />TO: Priscilla Walker, Assistant to the City Manager
<br />FROM: Yael Londono, HR/Benefits Administrat~.
<br />
<br />DATE: September 7, 2010
<br />
<br />RE: Response to Concerns Raised by Siver Insurance Consultants
<br />
<br />As you know, both Preferred Governmental Insurance Trust ("PGIT") and Florida Municipal Insurance
<br />Trust ("FMIT") quoted property, inland marine, crime general liability, public officials, employment
<br />practices liability, law enforcement liability, automobile liability & physical damage and workers'
<br />compensation coverage with mostly comparable limits and deductibles. Our independent insurance
<br />consultant, Siver Insurance Consultants ("Siver.), has reviewed the package proposals from PGIT and
<br />FMIT and they have advised that PGIT has offered the best overall combination of cost and coverage.
<br />
<br />Nevertheless, Siver has noted the most significant proposal differences as follows:
<br />
<br />Property Limits - It appears that PGIT based their proposals on a property schedule with total insurable
<br />values of $26,480,840. FMIT's property schedule totals $27,420,600, a difference of $1,019,760.
<br />$600,000 of that difference is due to the fact that FMIT includes Computer Equipment as contents and
<br />PGIT insures that equipment in their Inland Marine coverage section. The other $419,760 of the
<br />difference appears to be a location that is included on the FMIT schedule but not on the PGIT schedule.
<br />That additional location is a Retail Building at 287 Sunny Isles Blvd. If that location is, in fact, an
<br />additional unscheduled location, we recommend it be added to the PGIT schedule.
<br />
<br />RESPONSE: PGIT was correct not to list 287 Sunny Isles Blvd. This property was removed on 3/11/2010
<br />from the schedule. FMIT quoted based on the original declaration pages. However please note that the
<br />FMIT's premium for coverage on this location is $4,808.00 and thus does not create a significant change
<br />to the quote when compared to PGIT's quote.
<br />
<br />Propertv Blanket vs. Scheduled Coveraae - It appears that PGIT has quoted their property coverage on a
<br />"Blanket" basis which is preferable to the "Specific' coverage proposed by FMIT. However, PGIT's
<br />proposal is somewhat contradictory as it indicates that building and contents limit is "per attached
<br />schedule - Blanket." We assume that means that while the overall limit is a true "Blanket" limit, coverage
<br />applies only at scheduled locations; however, we suggest that it be confirmed that PGIT will provide
<br />Blanket coverage, if that is the program you select.
<br />
<br />As you may already know, Blanket coverage provides one limit (often the total insurable value of all
<br />locations) for any covered loss, regardless of whether one or all locations are involved in the loss and
<br />regardless of what values are actually reported (scheduled) for the damaged locations on the statement
<br />of values. "Specific. coverage, also known as "Scheduled" coverage is limited to just the amounts and
<br />locations reported on the Statement of Values and indicated on the schedule which becomes a part of the
<br />policy. Blanket is preferable because it is not unusual to find that property values, thought to be
<br />appropriate when reported on the statement of values, are actually outdated and possibly insufficient after
<br />the loss. We do not know when the City last had an appraisal of their property values, so we do not know
<br />how current the City's reported property values may be.
<br />
<br />Siver Concerns Response Memo
<br />
|