Police Officer Gets Runaround About Injury Claim ....files Suit Against All Involved

[djs]

Why would anyone assume its covered?

I don't know what his contract was, but there is a big difference between working for yourself and working for the city. You have a certain responsibility when you work for yourself. This is part of it.

There is a LOT of unknowns, but you have to figure out who he was working for first.

Dan

 

[Guest]

Dan,

You usually dont work for yourself in this situation, there are companies the hire the off duty officers to do this work.....

 

[delinsurer]

As a retired police officer I can tell you how these things work. The private companies who hire off duty officers to work "pay jobs" negotiate with the local city, county or state. These negotiations cover how much per hour the private company is to be charged for the use of the officer and the squad car if needed. No officer is allowed to act as a true "independent" contractor and set up their own side jobs as private security or any other scenario involving the use or implied use of their police powers. The departments get paid by the private companies for the use of the officer and his/her presence. The officer is paid a portion based off the prevailing scale.
IE: City gets $50 an hour for the use of their officer and the officer may make $25 per hour. That is how it is done. I have worked in departments with collective bargaining and those w/o. This is SOP for police departments around the country.
Since the city was receiving compensation for the use of their officer and their squad car, they need to pony up and pay. There is an inherent contract and duty on part of the city here. They are going to ultimately pay. Question is, do they want to pay alot or a little.

 

[Guest]

Wrong, delinsurer, there are private companies that do this, I insure a few of them.

This is a unique situation, thats for sure

 

[Norwayguy]

Even if there is an agent for the DEPARTMENT'S insurance, what are you expecting him to have done, gone and talked to all the officer's and explained the dept.'s insurance policy and provisions and exclusions and limits of liability? and expect them to understand and accept all of it?

Get real

I hope a judge sides with him and it sets a precedent for the insurance companies to not be putting all these clauses and exclusions for things that a majority of people would assume is covered

Why would anyone assume when working a side job that your main employers workmanship comp would cover you? Why are you blaiming the carriers the article make it quite clear the town was aware of the issue before this happened.

 

[delinsurer]

Wrong? How? Any off duty employment by a law enforcement officer has to be approved by the city, county, or State agency. You may insure private companies that hire off duty police officers for pay jobs, however, that has no bearing on the implied relationship between the department and the officer.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Another interesting twist would be if there is a collective bargaining agreement between the department and the officers union. Those documents usually spell things out very clearly. As far as being wrong, Red Blooded American, how many "pay jobs" have you worked in your lifetime?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consider this scenario.....officer working off duty pay job violates a persons constitutional rights. You think the city can just wipe their hands and say, "hey, he was off duty, not our problem."

WRONG. If he is working an approved extra duty pay job the city would have an exposure. Same principle is in play here.

 

[Norwayguy]

So the city is on the hook and the carrier has done nothing wrong.

 

[VolAgent]

The city can be liable, but that doesn't mean the insurance policy covers it.

 

[Guest]

Wrong? How? Any off duty employment by a law enforcement officer has to be approved by the city, county, or State agency. You may insure private companies that hire off duty police officers for pay jobs, however, that has no bearing on the implied relationship between the department and the officer.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Another interesting twist would be if there is a collective bargaining agreement between the department and the officers union. Those documents usually spell things out very clearly. As far as being wrong, Red Blooded American, how many "pay jobs" have you worked in your lifetime?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consider this scenario.....officer working off duty pay job violates a persons constitutional rights. You think the city can just wipe their hands and say, "hey, he was off duty, not our problem."

WRONG. If he is working an approved extra duty pay job the city would have an exposure. Same principle is in play here.

Your city/state vs my city state, things are done differently.

The cops are on the private companies insurances UNTIL they go into a police action, then they revert to the city/county/state's insurance.

Pretty simple

 

[delinsurer]

The city can be liable, but that doesn't mean the insurance policy covers it.

Really? Then why even carry liability insurance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Your city/state vs my city state, things are done differently.

The cops are on the private companies insurances UNTIL they go into a police action, then they revert to the city/county/state's insurance.

Pretty simple

I would submit to you that directing traffic in full uniform is a "police" action.

Maybe it is just me and being on the other side of the equation. I have seen all to often cops getting hurt on the job, hurt working pay jobs, duty related illness, etc,etc,etc, and it never fails. They have to fight tooth and nail for the city/county/state to finally pay what they are owed. It is always some bean counter playing games while the cop has to file suit agianst his own department, etc,etc,etc. Sickening!