Chickasaw supervisors table revisions to vehicle and personal-car insurance policy pending legal review

The Chickasaw County Board of Supervisors on May 27 extensively discussed proposed changes to the county's vehicle-use and personal-vehicle insurance policy and voted to table the item until they receive additional information from legal counsel.

Supervisors debated whether to require residents or employees who drive on county business to provide a certificate of insurance listing Chickasaw County as an additional insured, or simply to require an "active proof of insurance" card. Board members and staff also discussed whether the county should keep a prior internal standard that specified a $300,000 coverage threshold for people who use personal vehicles on county business.

Several staff members and supervisors described differences between an insurance card (issued every six months in some policies) and a certificate of insurance (typically issued yearly and listing insured limits). One participant who had contacted a local insurance provider reported the provider's recommendation would be $250,000 bodily injury per person and $500,000 per accident, though the board did not adopt any new numeric standard during the meeting.

Board members raised legal and liability questions about whether the county's insurance or legal defense would extend to employees or officials who are driving personal vehicles on county business and are reimbursed for mileage. Several supervisors urged clarity from the county's legal advisor on whether naming the county on a personal policy would change the county's exposure or the insurer's willingness to defend a claim.

During the discussion some supervisors suggested removing the section on use of personal vehicles entirely and instead emphasizing use of county-owned vehicles when available. Others proposed moving a proposed provision about county-owned vehicles to the front page of the policy.

After discussion, Supervisor Steve moved and Supervisor Scott seconded a motion to table the agenda item and to refrain from enforcing a prior informal consensus from the previous week (which had encouraged collection of $300,000 certificates) until the board receives additional information from Parker. The motion carried on a voice vote with no recorded opposition.

Board members asked staff to seek clarification from legal counsel and from insurance providers about (1) whether the county would be named on certificates without additional cost to individual policyholders; (2) whether the county's indemnity or defense obligations would change if employees were injured while driving on county business; and (3) the administrative burden of collecting proof of coverage on a six-month vs. yearly cycle.

Ending: The board took no further action; staff were directed to obtain legal guidance and insurance clarification before the supervisors revisit the policy.