KIA&B 2019 November/December 2019 | Page 16

| LEGAL EASE | County was deliberately indifferent but did find the guards were negligent. So, the Sisk family lost on the federal claim but won on the state law claim. If the family had won on the federal claim, the Kansas Tort Claims Act limitation of $500,000 would not have applied, and the County would have been exposed to a judgment far in excess of $500,000. There are also other types of federal causes of action that can be brought against public entities. For example, numerous complicated environmental statutes may apply to certain public entities. The $500,000 limitation under the Kansas Tort Claims Act would not apply to violations of federal environmental laws. Often insurance carriers attempt to exclude coverage for violations of environmental statutes through what is known as the “absolute” pollution exclusion. Some policies, however, do not have absolute pollution exclusions. Damages in environmental cases can be horrendous. Also, the Kansas Tort Claims Act would probably not apply to claims against Kansas public entities in other states. For example, if a school or municipal employee is involved Our Commercial Forms Library ... right at your fingertips! Appointed agents and brokers can search for, view and download an ISO form or MCG Proprietary form in a snap with the Commercial Forms Library on Mid-Continent’s Agent Portal. * Visit mcg-ins.com to get started. *All forms may not be available. Agent portal may not be available at all times. Policies are underwritten by Mid-Continent Casualty Company, an authorized insurer in all states except AK, CA, NY, VT and the D.C.; Mid-Continent Assurance Company, authorized insurer in CT, DE, FL, ID, LA, MO, NE, ND, NH, NJ, NV, ME, MS, OH, OK, PA, TX, VA, WV, and WI; and Oklahoma Surety Company, authorized insurer in AR, KS, LA, OH, OK, and TX. 1437 S. Boulder, Ste. 200, Tulsa, OK 74119. 5537-MCG (7/19) 16 in an automobile accident in another state, the law of the state in which the accident occurred would normally be the applicable law. In those situations, the $500,000 limitation of the Kansas Tort Claims Act would likely not apply. Some carriers are offering what are referred to as ‘wraparound’ endorsements in liability policies for public entities. My understanding of these endorsements is that they generally have a limit of $500,000 but would provide coverage over $500,000 only in situations where the Kansas Tort Claims Act would not apply to limit the exposure of the public entity to $500,000. The ‘wraparound’ is one possible solution to the potential exposure of public entities beyond the $500,000 limitation. In my opinion any public entity considering purchasing liability insurance should understand there are potential exposures for claims against it well in excess of the $500,000 limit under the Kansas Tort Claims Act and should at least consider obtaining policies that either provide higher limits or, through a wraparound endorsement, provide coverage in excess of $500,000 for such exposures.