Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table 11..9 <br />Five..Year litigation History <br /> <br /> <br />6/30/2001 116 8 7% $964,725 $401 ,339 42% <br />6/30/2002 83 5 6% $295,078 $162,677 55% <br />6/30/2003 123 13 11% $1,605,472 $693,269 43% <br />6/30/2004 74 4 5% $287,376 $133,682 47% <br />6/30/2005 87 4 5% $217,554 $65,145 30% <br /> <br />This history demonstrates a litigation ratio (number claims litigated + total number of <br />claims) in line with the national average of 7%. But, the expense ratio (incurred expenses <br />+ total incurred) exceeds the national average of 20%. The higher than average expense <br />ratio simply indicates an opportunity to improve litigation costs management. <br /> <br />Fifteen exceptions are noted in Table II-lO. Performance is assessed as needing <br />improvement. <br /> <br />Table 11.10 <br />litigation Management Exceptions <br /> <br /> <br /> Setting a budget and performing a <br /> cost/benefit analysis would improve <br /> 2003010 12/26/02 Trees litigation management. The City paid <br /> more to defend claim than the original <br /> demand. Case settled for $11,500. <br />3 2004069 5/14/04 21001 Administration <br />3 2004033 4/30/04 17021 Public Works <br />3 2001086 4/12/01 21006 Investigation <br />3 2002031 11/20/01 21006 Investigation Setting a budget and performing a <br />3 2002031 11/20/01 21006 Investigation cost/benefit analysis would improve <br />3 2002029 11/15/01 21006 Investigation litigation management. <br />3 2004017 5/14/03 Police <br />3 2001074 3/1/01 Public Works <br />3 98060 6/1/96 21004 Patrol <br /> 19 <br /> <br />ARM <br /> <br />Tech <br />