Nov. 11, 2008
Council Passes First Home Rule Objective; Effective Date July 1, 2009
Former Women’s Club Slated For Demolition at City Expense
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Judging from the lengthy work session Friday, Nov. 7, one would have anticipated that tonight’s Huntington City Council meeting would have had been a lengthy one. Instead, the meeting demonstrated the importance of the work sessions prior to the council meetings so that details, questions, and strategies can be worked more efficiently during the meeting.
At the work session, insurers expressed strong concerns that the city’s home rule authority to pass a municipal ordinance mandating insurers withhold a portion of their client’s contract would violate state insurance law (at the worst) and at the best result in Huntington becoming “insurance unfriendly” due to the need for a special rider.
The insurance industry has mounted a lobbying effort for the West Virginia Legislature to pass similar legislature. Two local delegates are committed to assisting in the proposal. A similar one died last session.
As part of the revisions to the first Home Rule objective, enforcement would be delayed until July 1, 2009, which would allow both the insurance companies and state legislature time to pass a statewide statute that mandates withholding of a portion of the “total loss” from a structure until a demolition contract is paid by the insured.
Huntington Fire Marshall Dave Bias handed out 14 pictures (you can download them by clicking HERE or HERE) of city properties classified as total losses yet the structures remain standing. It will cost the city approximately $250,000 to raze the buildings, including the once elegant Women’s Club which burned this summer.
Council member Scott Caserta objected to delaying the effective date.
Attorney Paul Farrell Jr., whom Bias called a “lifesaver” for his work on the ordinance, had mixed emotions about the delay. He acknowledged that “if you want to play nice” the July 1 date would make the stakeholders happy as “different municipalities” in W.Va. would not have “different rules.” But he explained that statewide Charleston politics is “diverse” and despite the eagerness of the insurance industry to gain a statewide statute, Farrell Jr. opined there “was not a guarantee the legislature will act.”
Eventually, the amendments and the ordinance passed. James Insco, an insurance salesman, voted against the ordinance.
“There’s a policy law in the state of West Virginia that would break a contract between the insurance company and the insured if there was a total loss. If the home was insured for $100,000 and it burned, the insurance company is required by law to provide $100,000 to that individual,” Insco explained after the meeting to HNN. “With this ordinance passing, insurance companies would then pay an additional $2,000 for every $15,000.”
Suggesting a conflict of law, Insco continued, “the conflict is between the individual and the insurance company. Someone’s going to get sued.”
To read the background of this story, download the ordinance, click to: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/081108-rutherford-localcouncilworksession.html
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Council Passes First Home Rule Objective; Effective Date July 1, 2009
Former Women’s Club Slated For Demolition at City Expense
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Judging from the lengthy work session Friday, Nov. 7, one would have anticipated that tonight’s Huntington City Council meeting would have had been a lengthy one. Instead, the meeting demonstrated the importance of the work sessions prior to the council meetings so that details, questions, and strategies can be worked more efficiently during the meeting.
At the work session, insurers expressed strong concerns that the city’s home rule authority to pass a municipal ordinance mandating insurers withhold a portion of their client’s contract would violate state insurance law (at the worst) and at the best result in Huntington becoming “insurance unfriendly” due to the need for a special rider.
The insurance industry has mounted a lobbying effort for the West Virginia Legislature to pass similar legislature. Two local delegates are committed to assisting in the proposal. A similar one died last session.
As part of the revisions to the first Home Rule objective, enforcement would be delayed until July 1, 2009, which would allow both the insurance companies and state legislature time to pass a statewide statute that mandates withholding of a portion of the “total loss” from a structure until a demolition contract is paid by the insured.
Huntington Fire Marshall Dave Bias handed out 14 pictures (you can download them by clicking HERE or HERE) of city properties classified as total losses yet the structures remain standing. It will cost the city approximately $250,000 to raze the buildings, including the once elegant Women’s Club which burned this summer.
Council member Scott Caserta objected to delaying the effective date.
Attorney Paul Farrell Jr., whom Bias called a “lifesaver” for his work on the ordinance, had mixed emotions about the delay. He acknowledged that “if you want to play nice” the July 1 date would make the stakeholders happy as “different municipalities” in W.Va. would not have “different rules.” But he explained that statewide Charleston politics is “diverse” and despite the eagerness of the insurance industry to gain a statewide statute, Farrell Jr. opined there “was not a guarantee the legislature will act.”
Eventually, the amendments and the ordinance passed. James Insco, an insurance salesman, voted against the ordinance.
“There’s a policy law in the state of West Virginia that would break a contract between the insurance company and the insured if there was a total loss. If the home was insured for $100,000 and it burned, the insurance company is required by law to provide $100,000 to that individual,” Insco explained after the meeting to HNN. “With this ordinance passing, insurance companies would then pay an additional $2,000 for every $15,000.”
Suggesting a conflict of law, Insco continued, “the conflict is between the individual and the insurance company. Someone’s going to get sued.”
To read the background of this story, download the ordinance, click to: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/081108-rutherford-localcouncilworksession.html
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
