LittleWind_ t1_j6xjct0 wrote on February 2, 2023 at 4:30 PM

Reply to comment by k1lk1 in New York Pays $121 Million for Police Misconduct, the Most in 5 Years by hau5keeping

I'm not opposed to having an insurance requirement that limits taxpayer liability when settlements occur. Practically, I don't think it'll play out well, because the industry will charge premiums sufficient to make a profit - which will necessarily mean we're paying more in premiums than we would in settlements.

Everyone on the liability insurance train needs to recognize that the police officers won't pay for it - taxpayers will. In almost every industry that requires malpractice insurance, the cost is paid by the employer.

LostSoulNothing t1_j6xwtvl wrote on February 2, 2023 at 5:53 PM

How about the city pays the baseline premium (I.e. what would cover a new officer) but if an individual is charged a higher rate (for example because of their disciplinary record or past lawsuits against them) the difference comes out of their pocket? It would both incentivize cops to follow the law and encourage those with the worst track records to quit.

CakeisaDie t1_j6y1832 wrote on February 2, 2023 at 6:20 PM

It is also a way to actually hold police accountable over multiple jurisdictions without making police talk to each other. I would rather weed out shitty cops via insurance than via deaths.

Ie if you aren't insurable in nyc, you won't get a job in dutchess.

Although there would need to be a balancing game between premiums and payouts to get an insurer on board.

Edit, thought about this alittle more and realized that as tax payers 125m is cheaper. 36,000 police means that the premiums are 3.5k or less, which considering my workers comp 5 per 100, at 65k you end up with a premium of 3.2k and police should get a higher risk profile and earn more than 65k. 125m is cheaper assuming tax payers would fund insurance so the balancing game is a lot harder.