Police Officer Gets Runaround About Injury Claim ....files Suit Against All Involved

[VolAgent]

Really? Then why even carry liability insurance.

No policy covers everything. There are always holes. If the city is going to put itself on the hook for cops working off-duty jobs, then they need to make sure they get coverage for it. That doesn't mean they do.

That said, if this is the case. I'm going to start writing council members to forbid cops working off-duty jobs. Why should my tax dollars be at risk so a cop can get a second job??

 

[Guest]

There are holes in EVERY policy, not everything is covered.....

In PHX, we have alot of cops that stand by at a construction site, most of the time they dont do anything or any police action. They usually stand around and watch us work, if they fall on a dirt mound, that isnt the cities or cities insurances problem, correct?

In AZ, IIRC, if we worked within something like 250 feet of an intersection, we HAD to, by law, have a cop with us, there usually wasnt anything for him to do, but watch us work, but the city or their insurance would have nothing to do with anything happening, fallin in a trench, what if a car loses control and hits the guy, he wasnt in any police action.

I could give you 10000 more scenerios, but I'm done argueing

 

[delinsurer]

No policy covers everything. There are always holes. If the city is going to put itself on the hook for cops working off-duty jobs, then they need to make sure they get coverage for it. That doesn't mean they do.

That said, if this is the case. I'm going to start writing council members to forbid cops working off-duty jobs. Why should my tax dollars be at risk so a cop can get a second job??

That won't happen as the city/county/state derive revenue from these pay jobs the officers work.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are holes in EVERY policy, not everything is covered.....

In PHX, we have alot of cops that stand by at a construction site, most of the time they dont do anything or any police action. They usually stand around and watch us work, if they fall on a dirt mound, that isnt the cities or cities insurances problem, correct?

In AZ, IIRC, if we worked within something like 250 feet of an intersection, we HAD to, by law, have a cop with us, there usually wasnt anything for him to do, but watch us work, but the city or their insurance would have nothing to do with anything happening, fallin in a trench, what if a car loses control and hits the guy, he wasnt in any police action.

I could give you 10000 more scenerios, but I'm done argueing

While they may look like they are doing nothing they are helping to protect the highway workers from drivers who are not paying attention, going to fast, etc,etc,etc. I worked a construction road crew through college and those guys "just sitting" in the squad with the three sixties spinning over head saved plenty of butts.

I would submit to you that a uniformed officer is in itself a "police" action. Their presence in itself is a police action, otherwise why not have them show up in their pov and wearing civilian clothes??

 

[Guest]

Done argueing with you...........I am TELLING you how it is in MY state, if yours is different, well then, go have yourself a cookie.....

 

[delinsurer]

Ok....I will have a cookie. Guru!

 

[djs]

Actually, if what you say is true, then the guy worked for the private party that negotiated the deal, I think, not the city.

The fact that the city approves outside employment does NOT create a situation where they work for the city at the time. Here's the trick, find out who paid the employment tax. They should have had the insurance.

Problem is, nobody here seems to really know the answer to that.

Dan

 

[delinsurer]

I guess my point is that these extra duty jobs are always negotiated with the city/county/state agency involved. These are not paid under the table and taxes are taken out of the checks just like any other paycheck. It is not a 1099 situation, at least not where I worked and retired from. Maybe it is different from state to state but I do not know of any police agency that would not want to control the who,what,where, when and how their officers worked side jobs in uniform. The liability is just too huge.

 

[rudy323]

No policy covers everything. There are always holes. If the city is going to put itself on the hook for cops working off-duty jobs, then they need to make sure they get coverage for it. That doesn't mean they do.

That said, if this is the case. I'm going to start writing council members to forbid cops working off-duty jobs. Why should my tax dollars be at risk so a cop can get a second job??

It's like if you're being robbed and you get help from the nearest officer and he says "oh well I am actually not on city payroll right now, you're distracting me from guarding this event"

You act like they are just throwing free money at officer's who work second "jobs" as if they are flipping burgers; they are still doing the same job, wearing the same uniform!

 

[VolAgent]

It's like if you're being robbed and you get help from the nearest officer and he says "oh well I am actually not on city payroll right now, you're distracting me from guarding this event"

You act like they are just throwing free money at officer's who work second "jobs" as if they are flipping burgers; they are still doing the same job, wearing the same uniform!

Then be on the city payroll doing work as directed by the city. They have no business working a second job to benefit a third party, yet putting the city and its insurance at risk unless the city is adequately compensated. My tax dollars should not be at risk because Joe's liquor store needs a guard and Bob Flatfoot wants to make extra money besides his cop salary.

 

[delinsurer]

VolAgent,

That is my point. The city/county/state agencies are compensated for the use of the officer and equipment. These are not freelance jobs. The agencies always get a piece of the pie.