web1_Borland-Kim.jpeg

SOS attorney rebuts WB-Area claims about state complaint on new high school

web1_Arena.cmyk_.jpg

After mixed ruling by appellate court, free speech case against Arena sent back to federal judge

Picking Pittston-based Joyce Insurance Group as Luzerne County&#8217;s new insurance broker would save $10,000 on brokerage fees and reward a company headquartered in the county.The unknown: Would it perform as well as Bethlehem-based Brown &amp; Brown of Lehigh Valley, the county&#8217;s broker since 2013?This question is on the table because a council majority made the unusual decision Tuesday to reject county Manager C. David Pedri&#8217;s recommendation to keep Brown &amp; Brown at its current $60,000 yearly fee as endorsed by an employee committee that reviewed all proposal submissions.The broker seeks insurance providers and administers claims for county coverage. County officials have said they are not required to select the lowest price for such specialized services as they would be for construction or basic supplies.With his first choice denied, Pedri recommended council hire Joyce Insurance for $50,000, which he described as the next option that would be a &#8220;comparable proposal&#8221; to the Brown &amp; Brown one.Joyce Insurance representatives could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday, but council wants the company to publicly present its qualifications and a proposed contract at its Dec. 10 meeting before voting.Brown &amp; Brown representative Paul Pugielli publicly highlighted his company&#8217;s work for the county at the Nov. 26 council work session.At that session, Councilman Matthew Vough asked the administration to compile a cost breakdown of the other submitted proposals and which were from county-based companies.&#8220;If there is someone in Luzerne County who is a comparable price and supports Luzerne County in taxes and employees, we should consider that as well,&#8221; Vough said.Councilman Patrick Bilbow agreed, saying council should know if there is a lower-priced option amid 2020 budget planning focused on &#8220;saving every dollar.&#8221;&#8220;If someone local is employing people in Luzerne County and paying taxes in Luzerne County, why are we spending more money outside the county?&#8221; Bilbow asked at the time, stressing he meant no disrespect to Brown &amp; Brown.Pedri later sent council a memo saying Brown &amp; Brown and two other companies were not located in the county, while three were.The prices of the in-county proposals: $50,000, $57,500 and $80,000. In addition to Brown &amp; Brown&#8217;s $60,000 proposal, the two other non-county respondents proposed charging $35,000 and $70,000, although Pedri&#8217;s memo said the $35,000 one included additional costs and add-ons.Service toutedPugielli told council during the Nov. 26 session his company has shopped around and negotiated to secure insurance at the lowest price far below typical inflation rates.The county&#8217;s insurance tab is $1.07 million this year, which includes property, general liability, auto and cyber coverage, he said. In comparison, the total was $1.05 million during the company&#8217;s first year as broker in 2013, he said.&#8220;I think we&#8217;ve done a good job with all the marketing efforts,&#8221; Pugielli said.In 2017, the company negotiated a $140,000 cyber insurance deductible for the county, reducing it to $10,000, he said. The county realized that $140,000 savings this year due to costly recovery expenses from a Memorial Day weekend cyber attack, he said.Brown &amp; Brown also documented actual county claims in 2017 to convince the public officials insurance provider to reduce that deductible from $150,000 to $1o0,000 and lower the premium from approximately $340,000 to $220,000, he said.Company representatives also focus heavily on risk management, attending all county safety committee meetings, providing at least six training sessions annually, performing regular county property safety inspections and offering online programs, Pugielli said.In response to council inquiries about lower-priced options, Pugielli told council his company is charging a fair price based on the extensive work involved. He said council would have to decide if it has confidence another company would put the same energy into monitoring claims, risk management and reducing premiums and deductibles.&#8220;I can only tell you that when we started here, there were a lot of things we had done that were not ever done in the past,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Maybe you get what you pay for.&#8221;In addition to Vough and Bilbow, the following council members opposed retaining Brown &amp; Brown: Sheila Saidman, Rick Morelli, Chris Perry, Robert Schnee, Jane Walsh Waitkus and Tim McGinley. Council members Stephen A. Urban, Linda McClosky Houck and Harry Haas voted for Brown &amp; Brown, with Urban saying he was impressed with the company&#8217;s work and savings initiatives.Councilman-elect Walter Griffith told council Tuesday he had predicted two weeks ago that Joyce Insurance would end up receiving the contract, and he made a claim politics was involved.Past argumentSome council members also had raised the issue of local brokers in 2014, when a majority ultimately decided to keep Brown &amp; Brown.Two other companies with local offices had applied for the work, with one charging more and the other less than Brown &amp; Brown. The lower local proposal was from Joyce Insurance, officials had said.According to past published reports:In recommending Brown &amp; Brown, the administration cited a past negative experience with the low bidder.Prior county commissioners had decided in 2011 the county would not do business with Joseph J. Joyce Associates Inc. the following year due to discrepancies in information provided by the Joyce firm.Joyce had supplied the county with a certificate of liability insurance stating it had the required $5 million coverage, but then-county controller Griffith said he obtained documents indicating Joyce Associates never purchased that amount.A representative of Joyce Associates told county officials its two other affiliated companies carried an additional $8 million in errors-and-omissions insurance that could be accessed by the county.However, Griffith said he and other county officials did not believe those policies complied with the county requirement because the affiliated companies were not hired by the county to provide insurance or listed in documentation submitted to the county at the time of the insurance awards.Instead, commissioners voted to purchase most insurance through Eastern Insurance in 2012 before the switch to Brown &amp; Brown under the county&#8217;s home rule government structure. <style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/web1_TTL101719Luzerne-County-Courthouse1-1.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">Luzerne County Courthouse </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/web1_TTL101719Luzerne-County-Courthouse1-1.jpg</photo0><caption0>Luzerne County Courthouse </caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta>By Jennifer Learn-Andesjandes@www.timesleader.com</bylineMeta></div>

Should Luzerne County make insurance broker switch?