Travis County Commissioners Court
June 27, 2006
Item 7
Number 7, consider and take appropriate action regarding the following property and liability claim recommendations: a. Ems unit 2616 - settle; let just take these as we call the numbers.
>> okay, good morning, judge, Commissioners. Item a is a -- an incident that occurred, the fire marshal driving westbound on highway 71, a vehicle came out of a private driveway and impacted our vehicle causing 14,117.47 in damage. We are recommending the transfer of this amount to fleet services for repair of the vehicle and we have put the third party's insurance carrier on notice for subrogation of that amount.
>> so we think we may recover.
>> yes, sir.
>> this amount that we are authorizing I guess to what -- what replace or repair the vehicle?
>> that's right.
>> move approval of a.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B? B is tcso unit 2126 [sic] to settle.
>> our unit was -- our driver was stopped behind, in the red light on u.s. 290 behind a vehicle, a third party vehicle impacted vehicle behind ours. Which in turn impacted ours, causing $10,047.97 worth of damage. We are recommending transfer of that amount for repair of the vehicle. Unfortunately the third party did not have insurance, so we are going to attempt to recover that amount from the third party without insurance it may end up in a judgment situation.
>> questions or comments? Move approval?
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. C. Jeff martinez - settle; our driver constable of precinct 5 deputy was driving behind -- driving south on congress street when the claimant hit their brakes to stop from hitting a car that turned in front of them, our driver was following too closely, rear-ended the third party, causing 6,059.04 worth of damage. We are recommending settlement with the third party of that amount plus $525 for loss of use for 21 days. The damage to this vehicle, which was a 2003 chevy s 10 pickup is close to a total loss, but the third party elected to have it repaired. So that would be what we are paying to repair the vehicle. There may be some hidden damage, however, once they start tearing that vehicle apart, so we would ask approval that we can pay the supplement damage if there is any, once it's been verified.
>> in other words, this may end up coming back if it was additional damage that were [indiscernible] at this point which we do not have any idea if that is the cost, it would come back to the court.
>> if the court wants us to come back, we can certainly do that or you can give us approval to pay the supplemental amount. Okay. There is a bodily injury claim purchased with this.
>> we will see it again, anyway.
>> we will probably see it, judge.
>> if there is an indication that corrective action was taken by the employee. Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. D. Brien water wells - to settle.
>> this is a -- a -- an unusual claim in that it was -- it's based on an error, but it not an insurable risk, so this claim is coming from t.n.r. Who from this communication directed the third party to conduct some well drilling tests and without realizing that the miscommunication took place, the third -- the claimant did perform the services. And this is a negotiated settlement of $72,800, which a third party is due for the work they performed. It's to be paid out of the t.n.r. Bond fund for southeast metro park where the work took place. So it's somewhat but it's based on a non-insurable error. That's why it's coming out of the -- not coming out of the risk fund because it's not insurable. 7.
>> hum. 7.
>> I'm sorry, east metro park funds.
>> what was the error?
>> we were drilling some wells, that would be the source of water for the irrigation of the park. The with wells that we need. And unfortunately there was a communications to go ahead and drill and encase the well. And the -- the proper financial documents were not in place before that instruction was given. It's work that we would have done, we should have used the proper procedure for doing that. We will make use of the work that has been done. So it's -- we have just got ahead of ourselves on that one.
>> so the error was that we had planned to do the work ourselves?
>> no. We would have it done by a vendor. Brine water wells had been doing work for t.n.r. Under another contract. Our employee thought that that contract, the scope of that contract was broad enough to continue to do this well as -- also, it was not.
>> but if this particular contractor hadn't done it, we would have gotten somebody else to do it.
>> yes, we would have.
>> about the same amount of money?
>> that's right.
>> okay.
>> I feel a little better now. [laughter]
>> discussion? Move approval.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. I tell you what --
>> we also request on that last claim on d, that there be immediate release of the check.
>> immediate release?
>> yes.
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> thank you.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:13 AM