Laserfiche WebLink
t' <br />14 <br />The consensus of the Board was that this claim be settled. <br />Mr. Hartline explained that the Board has the option of giving <br />the money ($50,000) directly to the homeowner, contract for <br />repairs or reimburse the homeowner for repairs to the home. <br />He said Johnson and Higgins interpreted this claim as one <br />occurrence. Mr. Hartline said there will probably not be <br />another occurrence at this home, because the movement ie <br />continuing. He said other incidents would be considered as <br />the same occurrence which continued over a period of time. <br />Mr. Hartline discussed an issue related to a recommendation <br />provided to Mr. Cooper several years ago. He said the <br />recommendation included making repairs to the utilities using <br />flexible couplings, because of the movement of the home. <br />Mr. Hartline said that those repairs were not conducted by the <br />homeowner. He said that without the repairs, there is a <br />possibility that the home would be destroyed in an explosion, <br />due to leaking gas. <br />Mr. Hartline stated that Johnson and Higgins was concerned <br />that the flexible couplings be installed as a means to repair <br />the utilities. He referenced an August 9, 1993 letter from <br />the Division (included in Exhibit A) and said Staff had <br />contacted the homeowner recently and that Mr. Cooper indicated <br />that he preferred for the home be repaired, using the $50,000, <br />and that he be allowed to reside there throughout his <br />retirement. Staff said that the Division was also concerned <br />that the flexible couplings be installed at the residence <br />The Board directed the Staff to establish a settlement <br />agreement with the homeowner to resolve this claim on behalf <br />of the State to the limit of $50,000 for one occurrence, <br />requested that the settlement include a provision for the <br />Division to contract with a contractor to make the repairs <br />necessary to ensure that the structure is safe, principally, <br />installation of flexible couplings eo that the house does not <br />explode during further subsidence, and stated that the <br />remainder of the funds would be awarded to the homeowner with <br />the contingency that the homeowner file a claim with his own <br />homeowner's insurance company (benefits from the MSPP are <br />considered in excess of an insurance company's settlement up <br />to the cost of repairs). The Board further stated that the <br />homeowner would be excluded from further participation in the <br />Program, as of his acceptance of the settlement. <br />* 1. DISCUSSION ITEM (Sunshine Item) <br />• DR. W. D. CORLEY <br />Mr. Long referenced an August 2, 1993 letter from Dr. Corley, <br />concerning the Division's IML Program. He said Dr. Corley had <br />made an allegation that work orders or other documents may <br />have been falsified or changed after the agreements had been <br />