2000-05-24_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981037 (2)

Home Browse Search

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