Newsletter

Celebrating Excellence: Members Receive 2025 Risk Management Awards

Six Authority members received Risk Management Awards for demonstrating superior risk management practices at the July Board of Directors’ annual meeting.

The Authority’s Risk Management Awards recognize members who have demonstrated the best overall performance in the Liability and Workers’ Compensation programs. The winners are:

Read More

Liability Program

• Coachella Valley Association of Governments (Non-Municipal Agencies)
• City of Big Bear Lake (Municipal Agencies without Police Exposure)
• City of San Luis Obispo (Municipal Agencies with Police Exposure)

Workers’ Compensation Program

• Southern California Association of Governments (Non-Municipal Agencies)
• City of Calabasas (Municipal Agencies without Public Safety Exposure)
• City of Morro Bay (Municipal Agencies with Public Safety Exposure)

A committee of California JPIA staff evaluated various factors that reflect member risk management efforts, including overall claims performance, improvement in claims performance over time, responsiveness to Loss Control Action Plan (LossCAP) recommendations, participation in the Authority’s loss control programs, and attendance at training and academy opportunities.

“The Risk Management Awards reflect the power of strong governance and leadership,” said California JPIA Chief Executive Officer Alexander Smith. “I am honored to celebrate this year’s award recipients. Their commitment to excellence in risk management sets a standard for our entire membership and public agencies throughout the state.”

Congratulations to the 2025 Risk Management Award Winners!

Print Article

2025–26 Memoranda of Coverage and Program Certificates

Throughout each coverage period, staff evaluates the Authority’s Memoranda of Coverage (MOC) for sections that should be considered for clarification, amendment, or change. These changes accomplish the goal of providing an easy-to-follow coverage document for the Authority’s membership.

On June 25, 2025, the California JPIA Executive Committee approved revisions to the following Memoranda of Coverage:

Read More

Memorandum of Coverage—Liability Program

Pages 6–16—Definitions: Definitions were added for the terms Annual Aggregate Deductible, Earth Movement, Endorsement, Member Retained Limit, Protection Limit, and Sublimit. Some of these terms had been previously used, but did not necessitate definition, while others are new to the document and are significant enough that they required definition.

Page 20—Exclusion P: The exclusion was amended to clarify that the approval or disapproval of land use regulations is both discretionary and non-discretionary. It has also been clarified that the approval or disapproval of ordinances includes any licensing issues, and also includes massage parlors.

Endorsement 2: After considerable consultation with the Managers Committee and the Executive Committee, a Sublimit on coverage for Earth Movement-related claims was adopted. This necessitated creating a new endorsement to the Primary Liability portion of the MOC. The Endorsement sets forth limits of $10M, per member, per coverage period and a pool-wide limit of $30M per coverage period, to be shared by all members, if necessary. These limits are regardless of the number of claims filed.

Endorsement 2 was previously utilized to list the Excess Liability Program members and their corresponding Member Retained Limits. We have moved that information to the newly formed Endorsement 3.

Endorsement 3 was amended to reflect that Pacific Grove and San Luis Obispo have increased their Member Retained Limits from $150,000 to $200,000 and $500,000 to $1,000,000, respectively.

Memorandum of Coverage—Workers’ Compensation Program

Page 6: Workers’ compensation coverage is now extended to paid and unpaid interns.

Memorandum of Coverage—Property Program

Page 4: “All Risk” deductible has increased from $10,000 to $15,000 for all perils and property including fire and ambulance vehicles and vehicles on the premises and boats.

Page 58: Terrorism limit has increased from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000.

Program summaries for the 2025–26 coverage period will be updated and provided to members in the coming weeks.

Your agency’s personalized Memoranda of Coverage and Program Certificates for 2025–26 are available for download. Member employees can go to cjpia.org, hover over Coverage, and then either click on Memoranda of Coverage or Program Certificates. Log in, and you will land on your agency’s organization page in our member portal and have access to this year’s documents.

If you have forgotten or require myJPIA credentials, please use the features found on the myJPIA login page to register or reset your password. Your username is your email address.

If you have any questions about coverage-related issues, please contact the appropriate program manager: Paul Zeglovitch, claims and insurance director; Jeff Rush, workers’ compensation program manager; or Christopher Gray, insurance programs manager.

Print Article

Public Law Update – AB 1785 Revises the California Public Records Act to Further Protect Officials’ Personal Information

By Elena Q. Gerli, Partner, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP

Originally published on June 4, 2025. Republished with permission from Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP.

Assembly Bill 1785 (AB 1785) amended Government Code Section 7928.205, relating to public records. The California Public Records Act is codified as Sections 7920.000 to 7931.000 of the Government Code.

Read More

AB 1785 became effective on January 1, 2025 and amends section 7928.205 which prohibited posting of an elected or appointed official’s home address and phone number. The bill amended this section to specify that “no state or local agency shall publicly post the home address, telephone number, or both the name and assessor parcel number associated with the home address of any elected or appointed official on the internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” AB 1785 specifies that “publicly post” means “to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available the information described in subdivision (a) on the internet in an unrestricted and publicly available manner.” The exemption does not apply to legally required notices.

AB 1785 also added findings to clarify the intent of the exemption, “to protect the personal safety and privacy of public officials and their families by limiting access to assessor’s parcel numbers in connection with the home address of those individuals.” The Legislature further clarified that the intent of the revised Section 7928.205 is not to limit access to “recorded documents, indices, and assessor data through electronic means by business entities,” and does not require databases that provide public access to such documents to be taken down, but ensures that a public official’s home address cannot be obtained through accessing publicly recorded documents.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP regularly advises clients on legal matters relating to the Public Records Act.

All materials have been prepared for general information purposes only to permit you to learn more about our firm, our services and the experience of our attorneys. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current and is subject to change without notice.

Print Article

California Employers Should Review Their Cellular Phone and Driving Policies Following Recent Court of Appeal Decision

By Jennifer S. Grock, Partner, and Jonathan Judge, Partner, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

Originally published on July 14, 2025. Reprinted with permission from Republished with permission from Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.

California employers are encouraged to review their cellular phone and driving policies in light of a recent Court of Appeal decision which bars drivers from using any functions on a handheld cellular phone while driving. People v. Porter, 111 Cal. App. 5th 927, 333 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168, 171 (2025).

Read More

On June 3, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in Porter, which reinstated the traffic conviction of a driver who had viewed a mapping application on his cellular phone while holding the phone and driving. The defendant, Nathaniel Gabriel Porter, who was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 23123.5(a) – which prohibits drivers from “holding and operating” a handheld cellular phone unless it is used in a manner that allows voice-operated and hands-free operation – appealed his traffic conviction to the appellate division of the Santa Clara Superior Court. Porter argued that the statute prohibited only listening and talking on a handheld phone. The appellate division agreed and reversed the conviction, concluding that “operating” a cellular phone under the statute requires active use or manipulation of the device, such as talking, listening, emailing, or otherwise engaging with the phone, rather than simply observing GPS directions. The Court of Appeal then reviewed the case, ultimately reinstating Porter’s conviction.

The court’s ruling concluded the statute prohibits all use of a cellular phone’s functions while driving and holding the phone, including passively looking at an application on the phone. The Legislature intended to curb distracted driving stemming from the expanded functionality of modern phones by banning all use of a phone’s functions while held in the hand. Further, the court reasoned that Porter’s use of his handheld cellular phone while driving implicated safety concerns. Under Porter’s interpretation of the statute, the court opined that a driver could not only view a mapping application, but also watch a video or other similarly dangerous, distracting activities, while driving. The court decided that Vehicle Code section 23123.5(a) was correctly interpreted as barring drivers from using any application or function on a cellular phone while holding the phone and driving.

Given this ruling, California employers should consider if any updates are necessary to their employment policies. While many employers may already have policies in place which require hands-free cellular phones to make and receive calls while driving, the Porter case holds that any use of a cellular phone violates the law when holding the phone and driving. Employers may need to review their policies to ensure the policy bars employees who are driving for work purposes from engaging in any use of a handheld phone and to suggest alternatives such as a cellular phone windshield mount so that drivers can observe mapping applications if necessary.

Employers with questions about their cellular phone, driving, and other employment policies may contact the authors of this post or their usual counsel at AALRR.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

Print Article