Cost Recovery
In the July 2009 issue of FIRE CHIEF magazine, a News and Trends article mentioned that several states, including Oklahoma, had enacted legislation banning pay-per-crash fees. Our department began pursuing “cost recovery” about two years ago, and the revenues have allowed our department to maintain services that in today's economic climate might have been in jeopardy.
In Oklahoma, HB 2013 was enrolled into law after several amendments and the removal of language that would have prohibited fire departments from pursuing cost recovery. I have included that amended section, which clearly states “for the response or investigation of motor vehicle accidents by law enforcement.”
SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section [10-118] of Title [47], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. Notwithstanding any other section of law to the contrary, no person or entity shall impose an accident response fee for the response or investigation of a motor vehicle accident by law enforcement.
B. For purposes of this section, “accident response fee” means a fee imposed for the response or investigation of a motor vehicle accident and does not mean any fee otherwise specifically authorized by law.
There is no doubt that insurance carriers do not want to pay the legitimate claims against their insured since it comes from their profits. The “double taxation” argument does not hold water as we respond to many accidents where one or both parties are outside our jurisdiction or state. Much like EMS, there is a cost simply for existing and being available to respond and an additional cost to actually respond. Our local taxpayers shoulder that expense. When we successfully recover a small portion of the costs, their tax dollars are stretched. Having received no negative feedback from citizens, it seems that the insurance industry is the only opponent to cost-recovery programs.
I have seen several articles where the insurance industry has wrongly claimed victory in Oklahoma. The information in your article may well have been obtained from one of them. However, we have seen the bill's original version where fire departments were included and are in possession of legal opinions confirming our stance that the bill applies only to law enforcement.
In closing, the industry's interpretation is flawed to the benefit of our taxpayers and those who will need our services in the next few minutes, days or months. Removal of “cost recovery” as a legitimate liability claim on traffic accidents will do greater damage to fire departments who are being forced to find new funding sources. This legitimate source places responsibility on the person(s)and their insurance carrier instead of the local taxpayer.
— Chief Mark S. Joslin
Sand Springs (Okla.) Fire Department
Due North
I was told during a recent visit [to Canada] that when the firefighters go to a private residence to check for smoke alarms in Ontario, they can fine the homeowner/occupant a considerable amount of money if they do not have working smoke alarms. Our laws in the United States prevent us from telling a man what he can and cannot do in his “castle.” In our state, we can't even get most agencies to take on the responsibility of enforcing the existing fire codes.
Many fire chiefs do not want anything to do with code enforcement; they are the good guys, or so they say. They don't understand that not fulfilling this important duty actually makes them the bad guy. Some departments focus on putting together programs that teach children all about clowns rather than to show them what firefighters look like, what they do and what the children can do to remain safe should they experience a horrible event called “fire.” As a result, many kids are still scared half to death when they are exposed to arriving fire apparatus and personnel. Combine that with the fact that we are unable to get a system established statewide for fire-code enforcement that would offer criminal penalties for serious violations and you have a situation we call “loser.”
Until we realize that a complete fire-prevention program includes engineering (design with input from the people who walk the walk, not committees overloaded with industry special interest groups), education (proper, responsible and mature common-sense training for all at-risk age groups presented by professionally dressed firefighters) and enforcement (zero tolerance for serious violations, which results in either paying a large fine or going to jail) we will never be able to properly get the message heard. And the number of fire deaths in our country will remain terribly high as long as we continue to let the homebuilder groups twist their facts, fabricate their stories and spend big money on lobbying the politicians with their spin. We need to call a fake story what it is; a fake. I personally am very tired of reading shallow articles and hearing stories from so called experts that offer their personal approach to how we need to address these important prevention areas. It's time the gloves came off and we stopped talking correctly and started pushing a no-nonsense message that is right and to the point.
— Fire Marshal J. Allen
Irmo Fire District, Columbia, S.C.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
