REPORT TO THE CITY

COUNCIL
BY THE CITY INTERNAL
AUDITOR

PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
CITY OF SHREVEPORT INSURANCE
PROCUREMENT

INTERNAL AUDIT INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT

OFFICE (IAR) 020119-06
505 Travis St.
Suite 450 DECEMBER 11, 2019
Shreveport, LA 71101
www.shreveportla.gov
Office: 318-673-7900
Fraud Hotline: 318-222-5698
Report Highlights Page(s)

• The appropriate insurance

procurement process was 10
circumvented

• City pays $622K more for

$516M less in property
coverage for storm 16

• Higher deductibles in 2019

for less coverage than in 16
2018

Leanis L. Steward
City Internal Auditor
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF INSURANCE PROCUREMENT
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT (IAR) 020119-06

Why We Did This Audit Performance Audit: Insurance

We have completed a performance audit of the Procurement
City of Shreveport insurance procurement. This
audit was conducted as a result of a Council What We Found
request to investigate the changes to the City’s The City’s insurance broker for Excess
insurance broker and insurance coverages at Workers’ Compensation coverage was
the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019. Our changed without completely following the
objectives were to determine how and why these appropriate process and without any
changes were made, and what impact these oversight.
changes have on the City’s property damage
risks. Although the determining dollar amounts
differ, both the purchasing policy and the
What We Recommended sections of the LA Procurement Code
adopted by City Ordinance would have
To better protect the City’s assets and minimize required an RFP to procure the City’s
exposure risk, we recommend management and insurance.
the administration
The most significant changes and
• Follow the rules in the City Charter and deficiencies in the City’s insurance
Ordinances. program involve property coverage.
• Issue an RFP that requires municipal
property insurance experience, • Premiums increased by
participation in the State Guarantee Fund $622,325.
as well as knowledge of other laws and
standards that have an impact on • Per Occurrence Named Storm
insurance property claims. coverage decreased by
$515,505,864.
• Obtain per occurrence coverage for the
total replacement cost of all City property. • Named Storm deductible can be
To improve transparency we recommend the up to $50,000 more than last year
administration even though coverage is
reduced.
• Issue an RFP that requires insurance
quotes along with the broker’s proposal. • $790,505,864 less in Increased
Construction Cost and
To strengthen policies and procedures, we Demolition coverage that
recommend the administration covers the cost of the
undamaged portion of a building
• Return Risk Management Office to the
that has to be replaced due to
Department of Finance.
Building Code requirements.
• Align the purchasing policy with the
adopted sections of the LA Procurement
Code.
 INDEX

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1

Index ............................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
Recommendation Evaluation Risk Criteria ................................................................... 4
Scope and Methodology............................................................................................... 5
Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................. 6
Who has authority to select the insurance agent/broker?.......................................... 7
What laws and procedures apply when selecting an insurance agent? .................... 8
What due diligence was performed? ...................................................................... 10
Policy Comparison: Former Program vs. Present Program..................................... 13
Other Analysis: Why did premiums increase when property coverage decreased? ... 22

2
 IAR 020119-06
September 13, 2019

Introduction

On December 27, 2018, after marketing and placing the 2019 policy, the City’s
Insurance Broker for Excess Workers’ Compensation insurance received notification
that they were no longer the agent/broker of record. An agent/broker of record is a
company or individual who has the legal authority to represent the insured in
maintaining, servicing, and purchasing an insurance policy. Because the change
occurred two days before the current mayor was sworn into office, many questions
arose about the authority, appropriateness, and consequences of making such a
change.
In January, our office was notified that the City had changed the broker/agent of record
for its property and casualty policies in addition to the excess workers’ compensation
package. As a result, the City Council asked that our office conduct an audit of the
procurement of all insurance policies for 2019.
In February of 2019, the Council passed Ordinance 18 reinstating the practice provided
for in Section 10.02(r) of the Charter to require the City Council to approve the amount
of all types of insurance in which the City pays the premiums in whole or in part.
The Council received an interim report on April 15, 2019 identifying the initial $50M in
property insurance as insufficient relative to the total replacement cost of the City’s
assets. Subsequently the Administration procured additional layers of property coverage
bringing the total to $300M in per occurrence coverage.
This report provides the results of our performance audit of the procurement of the 2019
citywide insurance program.
Health insurance benefits are not included in this audit because the City of Shreveport
is 100% self-insured. Premiums withheld from employees’ paychecks as well as
premiums contributed by the City are deposited into the Healthcare Trust Fund in order
to pay claims. United Healthcare administers healthcare and vision claims and Sun Life
Assurance administers the dental claims; and each are paid a monthly per employee
administrative fee. The terms of the agreements between the City and claims
administrators are negotiated by a broker. Any commissions and/or fees the broker
receives are paid by the third-party administrators based on their mutual agreement.

The objectives of this performance audit are to determine the following:

Did any change, dismissal, or selection of any insurance agent, broker, or
producer violate city policy, city ordinance, or any state law?
What was the selection process; and what due diligence was employed for hiring
the new brokers?
How do the 2019 policies compare to the 2018 policies for each line of
coverage?

3
 IAR 020119-06
September 13, 2019

Recommendation Evaluation Risk Criteria

This report contains three findings with five recommendations. The chart below
summarizes our evaluation of risk for the recommendations outlined in the report. Each
recommendation was assessed a high, medium, or low risk level based on a qualitative
assessment of exposure and/or corrective action priority.

Risk Levels Recommendations

Issue an RFP that requires the proposer to have
experience placing municipal property insurance, is a LA-
High Risk admitted company participating in the Guarantee Fund,
Represents a significant and understands other standards, such as building codes
level of risk exposure to city that may not be directly related, but have an impact on
assets, public safety, or insurance claims. (Finding: Greater Risk Exposure )
achievement of objectives or
mission. Corrective action Require that insurance quotes be part of the RFP in
should have the highest order to evaluate the level and quality of insurance
priority. coverage a broker is able to obtain before committing to
any particular broker. (Finding: Greater Risk Exposure)

Medium Risk
Represents a moderate level
of risk exposure to the city
from extensive operating Follow RFP process for the procurement of insurance.
inefficiencies or high-level (Finding: Process Not Followed)
non-compliance issues.
Corrective action should
occur expeditiously.
Low Risk
Return the Risk Management Division to the Department
Represents a minimal level
of risk exposure to the city of Finance. (Finding: Process Not Followed)
from inefficiencies or low- Change purchasing policy to align with adopted LA
level non-compliance issues.
Procurement Code. (Finding: Process not Followed)
Corrective action should
occur as appropriate.

4
 IAR 020119-06
September 13, 2019
Scope and Methodology

The scope of this performance audit includes the 2019 Excess Workers’ Compensation
and Property insurance programs. In order to meet our objectives, we reviewed relevant
internal controls and developed audit procedures that included but were not limited to
the following:

• Interviewing Departmental management regarding controls

• Reviewing City Ordinances
• Reviewing the Louisiana Procurement Code
• Consulting with insurance industry experts

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on our audit objectives.

We thank the City Administration and personnel in the Risk Management Division of
the City Attorney’s Office and Department of Finance for the cooperation and
assistance in gathering information provided to us in our work on this project.

5
IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

6
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Objective: To determine if any change, dismissal, or selection of any insurance

agents, brokers, or producers violated city policy, city ordinance or any state law.

Who has the authority to select the City’s insurance agent/broker?

The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Director of Finance provide
oversight, while the Risk Manager has the responsibility to sufficiently carry out
the insurance procurement process. Any written contract, agreement and or
formal approval should only be signed by the mayor.

Personnel Role Applicable Guideline

The Director of Finance with approval from the
Chief Administrative Officer shall:
Chief “Supervise and direct the placing of all types of
Administrative City insurance carried by the city where the premiums
Officer Provide Charter are paid by the city, or the premiums in whole or in
Oversight Section part are withheld through the payrolls; the amount
Director of 10.02 of all types of insurance on which the city pays the
Finance premiums in whole or in part shall be approved by
the council after a recommendation by the mayor.”
City Risk Management:
Supervises Ordinance
Risk Section a) The position of risk manager is hereby
City Attorney Manager 2-167 reassigned to the office of the city attorney.
b) The risk manager shall report to and be
supervised by the city attorney.

The Risk Manager:

− Prepares specifications for appropriate
insurance contracts, places the insurance
Personnel out for bids, assists in the review and
Risk Manager Procures Job evaluation of bids received.
Coverage Description
− Recommends the award of insurance
contracts to the firm whose proposal will
most benefit the City.
− Performs other duties as assigned by the
Director of Finance.
Signs City The mayor shall:
Mayor Broker Ordinance
Agreement Section Sign all contracts, bonds or other instruments or
5.02 documents requiring the assent of or execution by
the city, except those which some other officer is
authorized hereunder to sign, and be custodian of
the corporate seal.

7
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
What laws and procedures apply when selecting an insurance agent?
Section 10.07 of the City Charter specifically excludes professional services from
competitive bidding requirements under the public bid law. (Illustration pg. 9)
Based on the definition provided in the State Procurement Code adopted by City
Ordinance, insurance brokering qualifies as a consulting service and should be
procured through a request for proposal (RFP) if contract amount is $50,000 or more for
a 12-month period. The law further prohibits “artificially dividing service requirements so
as to exempt contracts from the RFP process.” City Policy established by the
Purchasing Agent requires an RFP for all contracts $10,000 or more, unless this
requirement is waived in writing by the Chief Administrative Officer. (Illustration pg. 9)
On December 28, 2018, the date of the letter changing the agent of record, the City did
not have a CAO. The former CAO resigned on December 9, 2018. The current CAO
was confirmed by the Council on March 12, 2019.
Although the dollar thresholds differ, under both the State Procurement Code and City
Policy, an RFP would have been required for procuring all of the City’s insurance
policies. The premiums paid for each policy are outlined in the table below.

2019 Insurance Program

Premium Policy Fee Total

Policy Package

Excess Workers’
$576,405 None $576,405
Compensation
and Inland Marine
Property Package $914,500 $250,000 $1,164,500

Fire Dept. Auto &

$340,676 None $340,676
Portable Equipment
Fire Dept.
Professional $408,396 None $408,396
Liability Package

Total $2,239,977 $250,000 $2,489,977

8
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Purchasing laws and procedures (continued):

1. Section 10.07 of the City Charter outlines competitive bidding requirements.

2. Section 26-269 of the City Ordinances adopts the State Procurement Code (La. R.S. 39:1551-
39:1755) which categorizes consulting services based on the total amount of compensation for a
twelve-month period.
3. Section 26-270 of the City Ordinances establishes the authority for the Purchasing Agent to adopt a
City policy for purchasing provisions including rules for the procurement of goods and services.

City Charter Section 10.07

…the purchasing agent shall give opportunity for competitive bidding…. Competitive bidding,
however, shall not be required in the case of contracts for professional services….

Is insurance brokering a
NO professional/consulting service?
Requires Competitive Bid

La. R.S. 39:1556 (10)

"Consulting service" means work, …rendered by either individuals or firms who possess specialized
knowledge, experience, and expertise to…provide counsel, review, design, development, analysis, or
advice in formulating or implementing programs or services, or improvements in programs or services....
"Consulting service" includes the procurement of supplies and services by a contractor…when such
supplies and services are either for insurance procured directly by a licensed insurance producer pursuant
to R.S. 39:1540(B)…

Purchasing Policy
Department Head
CITY
YES <$10,000 recommends at least 2
firms. CAO makes
No RFP required selection.
STATE

>=$10,000
What is the total maximum
< $50,000 compensation for a 12-month
No RFP required period?
Purchasing Policy
Consulting, Insurance and other
>=$50,000 Services shall be obtained…using
an RFP when the contract amount
is expected to be $10,000 or
Office of state
more unless…alternate method is
procurement requires RFP
provided by the CAO.
9
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Objective: To determine what due diligence steps were taken to select the new
broker.

What due diligence was performed?

Signs Broker
Mayor Agreement

Chief
Administrative Process City Attorney
Officer Organizational
Chart
Insurance
Oversight

Director of Risk Manager

Finance
Policy
Procurement

We found that no appropriate process was followed. The Internal Audit Office
interviewed the former mayor and previous City Attorney, and they stated that they did
not authorize any changes to the City’s insurances.
In an email, the Risk Manager told the interim CAO that the “directive” came from the
current Chief Advisor to the Mayor, who was not a City employee at the time.

2006 is the last time an RFP for insurance procurement was issued. Neither an RFP
nor a Request for Qualifications was issued in 2018. The broker for the current
property insurance told Internal Audit he had no prior experience placing municipal
property insurance.
Policy renewal documents for Excess Workers’ Compensation had been prepared by
the previous broker and accepted by the Risk Manager before the decision was made
to change brokers. No mayor (former or current) signed the agent of record change in
accordance with City Ordinances. See timeline on next page.

In November of 2015, Risk Management was moved from the Department of Finance
and became a division of the City Attorney’s Office. Oversight of insurance
procurement, however, did not officially transfer to the City Attorney. The changing of
City administrations in December 2018, including the City Attorney who was not
confirmed by the City Council until January 23, 2019 created an opportunity to
circumvent the appropriate process.

10
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Risk Manager receives Previous broker requests

2019 Excess Workers’ meeting with mayor to
Adrian Perkins is elected Mayor of Shreveport. discuss AOR change.
Comp policy invoices
from new AOR.

Chief
Administrative Risk Manager signs Excess
Officer resigns. Workers’ Compensation policy
renewal and binder New broker follows up with Risk Manager about
agreements prepared by payment for their invoices.
previous broker.

Mayor asks Chief

Administrative
Officer and Chief
Excess Workers’ Compensation Timeline Advisor for
background
related to the AOR
• 3rd party prepares Agent of Record (AOR) City Council finds out the change.
change letter and sends to Risk Manager. AOR has been changed and
• Risk Manager directs staff to print AOR letter asks Internal Audit Office to
on City letterhead for Risk Manager to sign. investigate.
• Previous agent/broker emails Risk Manager
asking for explanation of agent of record
change.
Risk Manager receives City of Shreveport
2019 Excess Workers’ Accounting division
Comp policy binders processes $542,000
and invoices from 2019 policy payment
previous broker. to new broker.

Mayor Adrian Perkins is sworn into office. Responding to Interim CAO’s request for all
correspondence regarding AOR change, Risk
Manager states that the current Chief Advisor to
the Mayor gave the verbal directive to change
insurance broker.

11
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Recommendation 1: Rules are in place for obtaining proper authorization in selecting

an insurance broker, but they were not followed. We recommend Risk Management
follow those rules. We also recommend returning the Risk Management Division to the
Department of Finance to provide more oversight.

Management Response: The former City Attorney resigned on December 28, 2018
and the Current CA started on January 23, 2019. An RFP was issued on September 11,
2019 to advertise for and receive qualifications for AOR. Proposals were received in
response to insurance broker services for workers’ compensation & inland marine
insurance, and for aviation, auto, property, casualty, commercial general liability, and
professional liability. A broker was selected from this process to provide these services.
Risk Management Division was moved from the Department of Finance to the City
Attorney office under the prior administration. This current administration already has
plans to move the Risk Management Division back to the Department of Finance.

Due Date: 6 to 12 Months

Recommendation 2: Because the fees are above the State and City requirement
thresholds, the insurances should be procured through an RFP. The purchasing policy
should be changed to align with adopted LA Procurement Code.

Management Response: The administration is revising the city purchasing policy to be

properly aligned with the procurement code.

Due Date: Less Than 6 Months

12
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Objective: To compare the 2019 property coverage to the 2018 policies.

Program Comparison: Former Program vs. Present Program

To assist with our analysis, internal audit engaged an insurance consultant with 25
years of experience placing municipal property insurance. Pages 13-17 give a summary
of his report.
Two Programs:
1. Present Program – group of seven policies that make up the current property
insurance program providing property insurance coverage effective March 20,
2019 and having an expiration date of March 20, 2020.
2. Former Program – single insurance policy that had an effective date of March
20, 2018 and expired on March 20, 2019.
Definitions:
Aggregate Limit: The maximum amount an insurer will pay for covered losses during
a policy period. The annual aggregate limit is the total amount an insurer will pay in a
given single year.
Occurrence Limit: The maximum the insurer will pay for all claims resulting from a
single occurrence, no matter how many people are injured, how much property is
damaged, or how many different claimants may make claims.
Earth movement: is inclusive of both natural and manmade earth movement. This
includes earthquakes, landslides, mine subsidence, and mud slide or mud flows.
Named storm: means a storm that, at any time, has been declared by the United
States National Weather Service to be a Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone,
Tropical Storm, or Tropical Depression, including any status or designation change
with respect to such storm.
Flood: means, whether natural or manmade, flood waters, surface water, waves, tide or
tidal water, overflow or rupture of a dam, levy, dike or other surface containment
structure, storm surge, storm tide, the rising, overflowing or breaking of boundaries of
natural or manmade bodies of water, or the spray from any of the foregoing, all whether
driven by wind or not. A tsunami shall not be considered a flood.
Non-admitted insurance company: an insurance company that doesn't operate under
an individual state's insurance laws. As a result, a non-admitted insurance company
doesn't enjoy the benefit of having its claims resolved in the event of a bankruptcy.
Increased Cost of Construction (ICC) and Demolition Costs: This coverage
provides claim payments for the increased cost of construction due to increased
building costs often associated with changes in building ordinances. These limits are
sub-limits of the policy and are included in, not added to, the policy limits.

13
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Structure:
All insurance companies providing coverage under both the Present and Former
programs are rated by AM Best as having a sound financial standing with long-term
financial outlooks of stable or better.

Both insurance programs have a primary focus of providing financial protection for
monetary loss as a result of three primary perils. Those perils being: Named Storm,
Earthquake, and Flood.

The Former Program consisted of one insurance policy with one insurance company, a
subsidiary of American Indemnity Group, Inc. (AIG), a well reputed company offering
insurance products specifically tailored for entities with assets as large as the City of
Shreveport and public sector entities.

Former Program
Financial size category greater than
$2B
LA-admitted insurance
company
Provides 100% of the 2018-
2019 insurance program

The Present Program consists of three layers of insurance policies:

• Layer 1 - single insurance policy
• Layer 2 - a co-op of three insurance policies from three insurance
companies each providing a percentage of the policy limit for the layer
• Layer 3 - three insurance policies with three insurance companies and a
policy amendment to a policy contained in Layer 2

14
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Current
Former
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
Maxum Navigators RSUI Axis James Differences
Company AIG Lexington James River Homeland
(Hartford) Specialty Indemnity Surplus River
Total Insurable
Value
$815,505,864 $815,505,864
Premium $542,175 $627,989 $56,226 $34,296 $22,490 $63,895 $60,767 $34,461 $14,377 $622,325 more
Policy Fee N/A $250,000 than former plan
Admitted 1 of 7 companies
Yes No No No No No No Yes No
Company admitted
rd
Effective Date 3/20/18 3/20/19 3/20/19 3/20/19 3/20/19 4/20/19 4/20/19 4/20/19 4/20/19 3 layer effective
1 month late
Occurrence $815,505,864 See peril specific: Earthquake, Flood, and Named Storm listed under sub-limits

$25M Primary $25M Excess of $25,000,000 $250M Excess of $50,000,000 7 policies & 7
Primary companies vs.1
nd nd
100% of Excess at Excess at Excess at 2 Excess at 2 Excess at Excess at Excess at in previous
primary limit 50% 30% 20% 40% 31% 20% 9% program
$12.5M part $100M part $77.5M part $50M part of $22.5M part
$515,505,864
$815,505,864 $25M per of $25M $7.5M part of $5M part of of $250M of $250M $250M of $250M
less property limit
Limits plan limit; see occurrence, excess of $25M excess $25M excess excess of excess of excess of excess of
under current
sub-limits below subject to $25M per of $25M per of $25M per $50M per $50M per $50M per $50M per
plan
sub-limits occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence
Sub-limits $25M less
$50M $25M Excluded Excluded earthquake limit
Earthquake aggregate aggregate under current
plan
$75k greater
Deductible $50,000 $50,000 N/A $25,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $50,000 deductible under
current plan
Flood $25M $25M
Excluded Excluded Same limits
aggregate aggregate
Deductible $50,000 $50,000 N/A N/A Same deductible
Named Storm
$12.5M part $100M part $77.5M part $50M part of $22.5M part
of $25M $7.5M part of $5M part of of $250M of $250M $250M of $250M $515,505,864
$815,505,864 $25M excess of $25M excess $25M excess excess of excess of excess of excess of less property limit
$25M per of $25M per of $25M per $50M per $50M per $50M per $50M per under current
occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence plan

Underlying Underlying $25,000 plus Underlying Underlying Underlying Underlying Deductible may
$25,000 $25,000 deductible deductible primary deductible deductible deductible deductible be $25K more
Deductible applies applies deductible applies applies applies applies under current
plan

15
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Current
Former
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Differences
Maxum Navigators RSUI Axis James
Company AIG Lexington James River Homeland
(Hartford) Specialty Indemnity Surplus River
ICC and Demo
$790,505,864
Coverage A–
$25,000,000 less policy limit
cost to replace $815,505,864 Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded
Occurrence under current
undamaged
plan
portion
ICC and Demo
Coverage B –
cost to demolish $10M $10,000,000
Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Same
and clear aggregate Occurrence
undamaged
portion
ICC and Demo
Coverage C –
increased cost
$10M
to repair or $10,000,000 Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Same
aggregate
replace
damaged
portion

2019 Highlights
• $622,325 more in premiums and fees ($1,164,500 vs. $542,175)
• $515,505,864 less in per occurrence coverage for Named Storm claims
• $25,000,000 less in policy limit for Earthquake claims
• Seven policies with seven companies*
• Higher deductibles but less coverage and more cost
• $790,505,864 less in undamaged portion demolition coverage

*James River in Layer 3 is an amendment to James River policy in Layer 2, not an additional policy.

16
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Consultant’s Conclusions: Greater Risk Exposure

The City has incurred a greater risk exposure with respect to property damage
coverage. With greater complexity comes greater opportunity for failure. Although it is
more common to see an insurance program with multiple layers of policies with large
accounts than with smaller ones, there are options in the market for single policies by a
single company.

Coverage risks that are more likely with a multi-policy, multi-layer approach are:
1. Coverage gaps caused by conflicting language between policies
2. Coverage gaps caused by policy language interpretation differences between
different insurance companies
3. Coverage gaps due to the insolvency of any one of the seven insurance
companies.

The issue of insolvency is particularly important as six of the seven insurance

companies used in the Present Program are non-admitted insurance companies. A
non-admitted insurance company is an insurance company which has elected to not
participate in the State of Louisiana’s Insurance Guarantee Fund. The Guarantee Fund
is in place to provide claims processing in the event an insurance company goes into
receivership. Being non-admitted does not mean that an insurance company is more
likely to go into receivership and has no bearing on their financial strength or longevity.

The important thing to understand is if a non-admitted insurance company goes into

receivership or becomes insolvent while a claim is open, there most likely will be no
funds to pay any claims by the insurance company and the client will have to pay the
claims themselves. This situation is rare, but it does happen.

17
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Claim Illustration

A Named Storm hits downtown Shreveport and causes the following damage:

1. $12M building damage to Government Plaza - replacement cost $21,208,830

2. $20M damage to Hilton Hotel – replacement cost $37,468,875
3. $18M damage to Convention Center – replacement cost $69,700,000
4. $2M damage to Community Development Building – replacement cost
$12,482,851

Note: Although not always the case, for this example, we are assuming the
replacement cost and the market value are the same.

Occurrence: 1 Named storm

No. of Claims: 4 (1 for each location)
Government Hilton Convention Community Total
Claim Amounts
Plaza Hotel Center Development Claim
Property Damage
$12,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $2,000,000 $52,000,000
(Named Storm)
Market Value
$21,208,830 $37,468,875 $69,700,000 $12,482,851
(replacement cost)
Damage
57% 53% 26% 16%
Percentage
Undamaged
Portion
Replacement $9,208,830 $17,468,875 N/A N/A $26,677,705
(ICC/Demo
Coverage A)*
Demolish and
Clear (ICC/Demo $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000
Coverage B)
Total Claim $26,208,830 $42,468,875 $18,000,000 $2,000,000 $88,677,705

*Under the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) if substantial damage exists,
and/or the undamaged portion does not meet current building codes, then the entire
building may have to be demolished and replaced. The IEBC defines substantial
damage as “damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring
the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred.”

18
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Claim Illustration (continued):
Current
Former
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
Maxum James Navigators RSUI Axis
Company AIG Lexington Homeland James River
(Hartford) River Specialty Indemnity Surplus
$25M
$25M Excess of $25,000,000 $250M Excess of $50,000,000
Primary
Primary nd nd
100% of Excess at Excess at Excess at 2 Excess 2 Excess Excess at
Excess at 9%
primary limit 50% 30% 20% at 40% at 31% 20%
$100M $77.5M
$12.5M part $7.5M part $5M part of $50M part
$25M per part of part of $22.5M part of
of $25M of $25M $25M of $250M
$815,505,864 plan limit; see sub-limits occurrence, $250M $250M $250M excess
Limits excess of excess of excess of excess of
below subject to excess of excess of of $50M per
$25M per $25M per $25M per $50M per
sub-limits $50M per $50M per occurrence
occurrence occurrence occurrence occurrence
occurrence occurrence
Total Claim
$88,677,705 $88,677,705
(from above)
Claim Response: Claim Response:
Named
$52,000,000 $25,000,000 $12,500,000 $7,500,000 $5,000,000 $800,000 $620,000 $400,000 $180,000
Storm
Less:
($25,000) ($25,000) N/A N/A ($25,000) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Deductible
ICC Demo ICC not
$26,677,705 Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded
Coverage A covered-
policy limit
ICC Demo met by
$10,000,000 Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded
Coverage B storm
damage
Total per
$88,652,705 $24,975,000 $12,500,000 $7,500,000 $4,975,000 $800,000 $620,000 $400,000 $180,000
Insurer
Total Claim
$88,652,705 $51,950,000
Response
Difference
(City Out-of-
Pocket $25,000 $36,727,705
Expense)

19
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
In the illustration above, for the same claim, the City would be responsible for $36.7M in
2019 compared to only paying the $25K deductible in 2018. There is $25M in
undamaged portion replacement (Coverage A) and $10M in undamaged portion
demolition (Coverage B) in the primary (Lexington) property policy. However, these
limits are sub-limits, part of, the policy limit and are not in addition to the policy limit.
Therefore, the $26.7 undamaged portion replacement and $10M in undamaged
demolition required under the International Building Code would not be paid. Increased
construction costs are excluded from the remaining layers of coverage.

Extracted from pg. 16

The basic goal behind buying insurance is to ensure financial wholeness following a
loss. Premiums are paid to an insurance company in exchange for a guarantee from the
company that it will bear the burden of a large but uncertain loss in the future. This
uncertain future loss, relative to the amount of risk (value of assets), not past claims
history, is the primary driver in obtaining property insurance coverage.

The City does not have the operating reserves to cover any damages that are not paid
from claims due to inadequate insurance coverage. Therefore having inadequate
property insurance coverage could potentially be catastrophic to the City’s finances.

In our research we found where cities did not have 100% of the replacement cost of
their property insured, they had cash reserves to make up the difference.

20
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019

Recommendation 3: Issue an RFP that requires the proposer to have experience

placing municipal property insurance, is a LA-admitted company participating in the
Guarantee Fund, and understands other standards, such as building codes that may not
be directly related, but have an impact on insurance claims.

Management Response: An RFP was issued September, 2019 to solicit municipal

insurance. The administration will issue another RFP in 2020 for the 2021 service year
to include the specific recommended language.

Due Date: 6 to 12 Months

Recommendation 4: Require that insurance quotes be part of the RFP so that the City
can evaluate the level and quality of insurance coverage a broker is able to obtain
before committing to any particular broker.

Management Response: The administration will issue another RFP in 2020 for the
2021 service year to include a request for quotes.

Due Date: 6 to 12 Months

Recommendation 5: Seek to obtain per occurrence property insurance at 100% of the

replacement cost of the City’s insurable assets.

Management Response: The administration will issue another RFP in 2020 for the
2021 service year to include the specific recommended language.

Due Date: 6 to 12 Months

21
 IAR 600019-06
September 13, 2019
Other Analysis: Why did premiums increase when property coverage decreased?
The broker for the Present Program, who admittedly had no prior municipal property
insurance experience, stated to the IA Office that the reason for the significant increase
in premiums with a reduction in coverage is due to the changes in flood ratings in this
area. Although Flood is a small portion of the City’s property insurance, we attempted to
find data to reflect any changes to Shreveport and/or Caddo Parish flood ratings; but,
we found none.

Flood ratings are set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
According to FEMA’s website the rating for Caddo Parish has not changed since the
last Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was conducted by FEMA in 2014. According to FEMA,
insurance agents use the information provided in FIS studies in conjunction with
information on structures and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance
policies.

According to FEMA the following factors influence policy premiums

• Year of building construction

• Building occupancy
• Number of floors
• Location of its contents
• Flood risk (e.g., its flood zone)
• Location of the lowest floor in relation to the Base Flood Elevation on the flood
map
• Deductible and amount of building and contents coverage

Of the items listed, the only one that changed for the City of Shreveport from 2018 to
2019 was the deductible; and it increased: a factor that usually decreases insurance
premiums.

22