Wednesday, October 22, 2014

FWISD RESPONSE TO FOIA REQUEST ON LIABILITY INSURANCE

Have you ever been in a situation where the person who is talking or is trying to impress you speaks with big vocabulary words and it all sounds good....

But they have no idea what they are doing because they themselves don't know either.






So we come to FWISD and highly paid attorneys who have fed much garbage to the board, that even with a lawyer on the board, have no clue what they do.

Attached is the form released by FWISD regarding the insurance they claim is going to pay for the appeal and perhaps for the Dansby Defamation Suit.

We are not lawyers by any means but just read the sections at the end of Page 2 into Page 3 regarding what it may not cover.  Are we reading it right that the appeal and Dansby would not be covered based on the interpretation of the wording?  Also there is no mention of appeal coverage, it just says a claim made and does not cover damages.

So either the lawyers can't tell the board the truth and the board doesn't ask because they have no clue.

Any lawyers out there that can help us out?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B58nQYNsVgwwSTh2S29TaUF2U2pKSzFEOVZUNHZONldyRklJ/view?usp=sharing

14 comments :

  1. No, you're not correct. The definition of "claim" on page 2 covers any monetary relief as a result of litigation. It specifically excludes any claims or damages as a result from any administrative hearings (TEA, workers comp, EEOC, etc.)


    My reading is that judgments as a result of lawsuits are covered as well as attorney fees in defense of such lawsuits.


    What you should be focused on is the policy's $1,000,000 per occurrence limit (your document's page 6 of 7). I'll give you three guesses who is left holding the bag for any judgement over $1,000,000.


    And, off particular note, is the "Consent to Settlement" clause on page 3. With most insurance policies, the right to settle rests with the insuring company with the insured's consent. If the insured does not consent to any recommended settlement proposed by the insuring company, then the insured is on the hook for any damages over the proposed settlement.


    It's good the district has this policy because it may help offset costs but it's foolish to think that all costs are covered by this policy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reading some of this policy as well as "laughable's" response is very helpful to me as a board member. Thank you.



    So the district is covered, but only up to $1 million.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't See the HumorOctober 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM

    I think "Laughable" should go back and re-read the policy. FWISD was found guilty of retaliation. They have already settled other similar claims so there is a definite pattern of behavior. Their actions convinced the Jury that they were premeditated thus negating any chance of proper notification to the Insurer. Three of the stated exclusions to coverage obviously apply to this case. Not only did FWISD lose (twice) before the Commissioner of Education, (after "bribing" a hearing examiner by paying him 3 times the legal limit), they also appealed that decision and lost in District Court, then appealed that decision only to withdraw the appeal and instead to fire Palazzolo a second time. Moreover, as a result of Palazzolo's report to TEA, FWISD was placed on an "Attendance Control Plan" before they terminated him, which had to be approved by TEA, and FWISD was forced to refund thousands (now millions) of dollars received as a result of intentional fraudulent attendance reporting. I would argue FWISD under this policy is very definitely NOT covered. This "carrier" however, is free to waive any portion of the agreement they wish. What is clear however is that any and all fees expended on an appeal are definitely not covered by this policy. I would suggest the FWISD Board come to their senses and end what is obviously a personal vendetta against this man.
    - except in the Dansby issue which has yet to be tried.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the history lesson. What I addressed is what I read. The questions at hand, as I understood the original post to ask, is whether the whistleblower lawsuit in district court and subsequent appeal would be covered. Reading the policy, it looks like it would be subject to a $1,000,000 per occurrence limit.


    If you are asking about any hearings in front of TEA, I would say that specific action isn't covered. The policy specifies that. I'm sure FWISD was on the hook for the cost of that hearing. But a hearing in front of TEA and a lawsuit in district court are two separate events even if it is because of the same issue.


    Just the same as when we're in a car wreck, ultimately it's the insurance companies that decide if it is covered by the policy. As always, the playing field is tilted in their favor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't See the HumorOctober 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM

    I would say again that you need to read the exclusions. In the end, it is up to the carrier what they will or will not cover. There is however nothing in this document about covering appeals or ignoring/circumventing the Board's sole authority/responsibility as elected representatives of the taxpayers to make that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What about their legal fees? Close to $500,000 were already awarded to his attorneys. Who pays for the Board's legal fees?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Careful. $18,000 of the attendance reporting was fraud. The remaining money has not (and I believe, will not) been determined to be fraud; it was initiated when the new payroll plan was pushed forward by Supt Melody Johnson w/o proper preliminary procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Usually in liability insurance policies like these, the insurance companies picks up the legal fees for defense of lawsuits.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As part of the $1 million or in addition to?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Attorney fees to defend a lawsuit are usually considered a "claims expense" and are covered by the insurance company separate from any damages limits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Careful"? Are you serious? "Determined" by whom? The Board is charged with oversight and approval - with transparency. As I hope all candidates for Super can read on this site, this Board continues to fail on all counts. Reckless spending, patronage, and retaliation continue. Easy to blame those who are no longer around. In both whistleblower cases, the entire Board was well aware of what was going on. The public needs to see the trial transcripts and evidence prior to the Board election. We need to clean house.

    ReplyDelete
  12. While I find the comments of "Laughable" interesting, the are not accurate. Frankly I am stunned that the Board has pursued this for five years (as legal fees continue and interest accrues) as well as that of other employee cases - all in seeming ignorance of their own policy. The most critical aspect of the policy which "Laughable" conveniently overlooked was on Page 2 Paragraph C-3. This liability policy is self-insured. FWISD is responsible for the WHOLE THING to include all the legal fees. When you consider this case could have been settled pre-trial, over a year earlier, for $300,000 and a two year contract, one has to question the Board's decision making process and stewardship of taxpayer funds.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As I commented below, "Laughable" is obviously putting out incomplete information. FWISD is SELF-INSURED. This means they bear 100% of all costs. There is nothing more complicated than that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You need to go back to whatever law school you went - if any. My guess is, you work for FWISD and are simply putting out disinformation which obviously some naïve person like Sutherland will swallow.

    ReplyDelete

Comments