Issue 84-February 2019
At the 2019 League of California Cities City Managers Conference in San Diego, California JPIA Chief Executive Officer Jon Shull received the California City Management Foundation (CCMF) Corporate Sponsor Award for California JPIA’s contribution to the city management profession.
California JPIA: 2019 Recipient of the California City Management Foundation Corporate Sponsor Award
At the 2019 League of California Cities City Managers Conference in San Diego, California JPIA Chief Executive Officer Jon Shull received the California City Management Foundation (CCMF) Corporate Sponsor Award for California JPIA’s contribution to the city management profession.
“The California JPIA has a known track record of successfully managing risk for cities throughout California and I am proud to be recognized by the California City Management Foundation for our work supporting the health of our member organizations,” said Shull.
Presented on an annual basis, CCMF’s Corporate Sponsor Award recognizes individuals who make an impact in the city management profession throughout California. California JPIA has been a Foundation Circle sponsor of the California City Management Foundation since 2015.
“California JPIA has been a leader in working with city managers to improve and support the profession. For years, this organization has been more than just insurance support – they truly help build better local governments throughout California. And for that, both myself and all California city managers thank California JPIA for their excellent partnership,” said California City Management Foundation President Wade McKinney.
The California City Management Foundation promotes and encourages excellence in city management in the more than 480 incorporated cities and towns throughout the state.
The California JPIA was established in 1978 for the purpose of providing liability protection from losses and lawsuits for its members and is one of the largest insurance pools in the state, with more than 100 participating members.
Photo: Jon Shull, CEO of California JPIA, and Wade McKinney, President of CCMF
ADA Web Accessibility Litigation is on the Rise
By Traci I. Park and Stephanie Gutierrez, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
The Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) has been law since 1990. This federal statute prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.
Title II of the ADA applies to state and local government and prohibits discrimination by public entities against disabled individuals in all programs, activities, and services. Among other things, Title II requires public entities to reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination, and mandates that public entities ensure effective communication with individuals with speech, hearing, vision and other disabilities. California state law has similar requirements.
While most public entities offer a broad range of auxiliary aids and services, such as large print materials, assistive listening devices, or sign language interpreters, one area where many organizations fall short is with electronic and information technology. The internet age has made the provision of information about municipal programs, activities, and services such as applying for permits, paying bills, and renewing licenses online standard practice for many public agencies. However, little attention has been given to ensuring that such electronic information, access, and services are equally accessible to those with disabilities.
Poorly designed websites can create barriers for people with disabilities, just as poorly designed buildings prevent some people with disabilities from entering. Access problems often occur because website designers mistakenly assume that everyone sees and accesses a webpage in the same way. Many people with disabilities use assistive technology, such as screen readers, text enlargement software, or programs that enable people to control a computer with their voice instead of a mouse or keyboard.
ADA WEB ACCESSIBILITY LITIGATION IS ON THE RISE ADA
When Congress passed the ADA in 1990, the Internet was in its infancy. However, Congress intended that the ADA “…keep pace with the rapidly changing technology of the times.  Congress acknowledged that technological advances may “…require public accommodations to provide auxiliary aids and services in the future which today would not be required because they would be held to impose undue burdens on such entities. 
An emerging legal issue is whether and to what extent the ADA protections extend to the digital world. In the last couple of years, hundreds of lawsuits against both public and private entities have been filed, and of those, at least 153 arose in California. While the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has consistently maintained that the ADA applies to websites, federal and state courts are now following suit.
Public entities across the nation have entered into settlement agreements due to alleged violations of the ADA. For example, in 2015, as part of a settlement between Merced County and the DOJ, the County agreed to remove any barriers preventing full access to its website. The settlement required the County to:
“Retain an independent consultant, approved by the United States, who is knowledgeable about accessible website development, title II of the ADA, and WCAG 2.0 to evaluate Merced County’s website and any proposed online services for compliance with the ADA and, at minimum, WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA Success Criteria and other Conformance Requirements (WCAG 2.0 AA), and who shall be responsible for the annual website accessibility evaluation. Merced County will bear all costs and expenses of retaining and utilizing this independent consultant, including the costs and expenses of any staff. Merced County will compensate this independent consultant without regard to the outcome. 
Similarly, in Aleeha Dudley and United States v. Miami University, et al.  a blind plaintiff filed an action against Miami University alleging that Miami University uses technology in its programs, services and activities that are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities in violation of Title II of the ADA. The case was resolved in 2016 by consent decree. Under the consent decree, Miami University will, within six (6) months, make significant improvements to ensure that all forms of technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Court also identified individuals to whom Miami University will provide a monetary payment of $25,000.00.
Notably, the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2019 re-affirmed this premise in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.  Although the suit was brought forth as a violation under Title III of the ADA, the same considerations have been made in settlement agreements with public entities. Robles accesses the internet using a screen reading software. He had on multiple occasions attempted to order a customized pizza online from a nearby Domino’s. Unable to order online, Robles filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit held “the ADA mandates that places of public accommodation, like Domino’s, provide auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to individuals who are blind.”  The Court furthermore found, “[t]his requirement applies to Domino’s website and app, even though customers predominantly access them away from the physical restaurant: ‘The statute applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of the statute.'” 
Here in California, Los Angeles and Orange Counties have seen a significant uptick in the number of ADA web accessibility cases filed in recent months, most seeking injunctive relief, an order directing the defendant to bring its website into full compliance with the ADA, and attorney’s fees and costs. Although an individual may not be awarded punitive damages in a Title II action, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and reimbursement of costs for violation of the ADA under 42 U.S.C. § 12133 are available to a plaintiff who prevails on an ADA claim.
COMMON PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS TO WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY
There are a number of basic web-based hurdles that can lead to ADA claims. For example, vision-impaired people may use different technologies to access information displayed on a computer screen. One common tool is a screen reader, which speaks the visible text, but this technology cannot read or interpret visual data, such as images, graphics, or logos, even if words appear in those items. Thus, a photo of the mayor on a city’s website would remain inaccessible to a visually impaired user using a screen reader. A relatively simple solution is to add a text caption, such as “Photograph of Mayor Smith greets children at the library.” For more complex images, such as a map of city library locations, a text equivalent could simply provide the addresses.
Another common problem is documents posted online in PDF format. Like photos, a PDF is an image based format that cannot be viewed by a text reader. To address this barrier, documents should also be posted in HTML or RTF format, which is more compatible with assistive technologies.
Similarly, videos and other multimedia content can present access problems for hearing or vision impaired users. To address this, consider incorporating features such as audio descriptions of images and text captions synchronized to the video images.
Some visually-impaired users may only be able to see web content if it appears in certain colors, and others cannot see it at all if it is too small. Users should be able to manipulate the color and font settings in their web browsers or operating systems to make pages readable. Avoid designing your agency’s website so that these features cannot be adjusted by an individual user.
When navigation links are used, people who use a screen reader must listen to all the links before proceeding. A “skip navigation” link at the top of the webpage allows people who use screen readers to ignore navigation links and skip directly to webpage content.
An agency with an inaccessible website may also meet its legal obligations by providing an alternative accessible way for citizens to use the programs or services, such as a staffed telephone information line. These alternatives, however, are unlikely to provide an equal degree of access in terms of hours of operation and the range of options and programs available.
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MEET ADA OBLIGATIONS?
There are several things public agencies can do to ensure they are meeting their obligations under the ADA. First, establish, implement, and post a policy on your web pages indicating that it will be accessible to disabled users, and then create a process for implementation. Second, work with IT professionals to ensure your web-based content and subsequent updates are accessible to disabled users. Third, train in-house staff and contractors responsible for webpage content and development on compliance issues. Fourth, provide a way for visitors to request accessible information or services by posting a telephone number or email address on your home page and ensure a quick response to users with disabilities who are trying to obtain information or services in this way. Finally, ensure that there are alternative ways for people with disabilities to access the information and services that are provided on your website. Remember, some people may not have, or be able to use, a computer.
For additional resources, please see:
ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments,https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm
Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities,https://www.ada.gov/websites2.htm
H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 108.
 Department of Justice Case No. 204-11E-383
 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Case No. 1:14-cv-038
 2019 WL 190134
 Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 2019 WL 190134 , See also 28 C.F.R. § 36.303
 Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 2019 WL 190134 citing Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 953 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
2019 Risk Manager Roundtable Topics
by Ryan Thomas, Training and Loss Control Specialist
The Authority presents quarterly roundtables on various topics related to risk management. These roundtables are opportunities for members to learn about relevant topics, network with their peers over lunch, and provide a forum for open discussion and dialogue on emergent member issues. Typically, the two-hour roundtables are held at three locations: the California JPIA Campus in La Palma, a host member agency in the Central Coast and a host member agency in the Coachella Valley.
The roundtables held in February, entitled “Knowing Your Contractual Risk Transfer Resources”, included a guided discussion about the Authority’s Contractual Risk Transfer manual and underutilized resources that assist members in effectively transferring risk.
This May, the roundtables will cover “Handling Workplace Investigations” presented by Kelly Trainer of Burke, Williams and Sorensen. This event will cover appropriate investigation techniques and documentation of employee misconduct and discipline and when to use an independent or internal investigator, and the importance of documentation of the investigation and role it plays in defense of employment litigation will be discussed. Dates and locations will be announced soon.
Future roundtable topics are scheduled to discuss the following topics:
August: “Understanding and Preserving Governmental Immunity Defenses”
November: “Building Resiliency Against Cyber Attacks”
Risk Manager Roundtables are open to all member agency staff members. As the roundtable date draws closer, registration will be made available through myJPIA.org.
For further information regarding the Risk Manager Roundtables, please contact Ryan Thomas, Training and Loss Control Specialist.
Join Social Media Conversations with the Authority
In order to reach new members and better connect with current members, the Authority has an active presence on social media. Members can find information on various topics on the social media channels listed below.
Connect with our latest topics:
“January’s Risk Management Academy featured educational sessions focused on unique loss exposures of public entities, the purpose of risk management in the public sector, and more. Thank you to all of our participants and instructors! Learn more about our Academies here: http://tinyurl.com/yd28f54k” Like, comment and share:
“As of January 1, 2019, AB 3002 requires California cities and counties to provide notices related to disability access requirements to applicants for commercial building permits and business licenses. For more information, visit the California Council on Disability Access’s Resources page at https://lnkd.in/gAWC57w” Follow us, comment and share about risk management:
“Kindness in the workplace is possible and can create better workplace harmony and productivity. We went with donuts and notes. How will you incorporate kindness into your work day? #RandomActsOfKindnessDay #RAKDay #KindnessStartsWithOne https://tinyurl.com/y38c6rbu” Tweet, retweet and follow the California JPIA:
For information on how to join these sites or participate in discussions, please contact Courtney Morrison, Administrative Analyst, by email or by phone at (562) 467-8779.
California Assembly Bill 3002: Disability Access Requirements: Notices to Applicants of Building Permits and Business Licenses
By Barbara Thorpe, President, Disability Access Consultants
California Assembly Bill 3002 (AB 3002 ) was signed by Governor Jerry Brown in September 2018 and went into effect January 1, 2019. This new law requires all cities, including charter cities, issuing building permits for commercial construction or business licenses to make available a notice containing specified information regarding disability access. Local agencies are required to provide the informational notice to an applicant for a commercial building permit or a business license. This bill is designed primarily for businesses that are considered commercial establishments and places of public accommodation, meaning that the facility is open to customers to obtain the products and services of the business. The notice strongly encourages, but does not require, the applicant to obtain consultation by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) before any alterations or construction and an inspection after alterations or construction. Under AB 3002, city and county governments are only responsible for providing these notices to commercials property and business owners.
The intent of AB 3002 is to help educate businesses on requirements for accessibility in their establishments to increase compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California Building Code (CBC) and the state Unruh Civil Rights Act (Section 51 of the Civil Code) by owners and tenants of commercials property to increase awareness of the laws and resources available. By encouraging businesses to proactively comply with construction-related accessibility requirements before making property improvements, a reduction in claims and litigation of costly lawsuits may result. By engaging in proactive measures to provide assurance that the construction will be done in a compliant manner the first time may avoid “re-doing” noncompliant alterations or construction. As such, more public accommodations and businesses should be accessible for persons with disabilities.
Model Notices and Language Translation
To assist public entities to provide the required information to businesses, the California Department of General Services has created a model notice for applicants for business licenses and commercial building permits. The model notice contains information about resources, CASp services, government tax credits, tax deductions and financing in addition to information about the ADA and the CBC. The AB 3002 Model Notice is currently available in English on the Division of the State Architect website, with additional translations in development.
Method for Notice
Depending upon the method that an applicant can use to apply for a business license or building permit, the model notice can be included as part of a hard copy application that applicants would print and complete. If an online application is used, the notice can be included as a page or section of the online application.
By Abraham Han, Administrative Analyst
The California State Legislature convened on December 3, 2018, to start the 2019-20 legislative session. A few months into 2019, this legislative year is already busy with several of the 2,576 submitted bills of interest to California JPIA and municipal risk management professionals.
The Authority provides this update to member agencies and partners to ensure familiarity with the impact of Sacramento’s actions on our day-to-day local government operations. The Authority’s legislative advocacy efforts are regularly coordinated with the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities and the League of California Cities.
Please note that bills are subject to amendments and revisions that can significantly change the meaning of the bill over time. As the bills start to take true shape, the Authority will provide a position on key bills and continue to update members and partners.
AB 5 (Gonzalez). Worker status: independent contractors.
Summary: Current law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex), creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee. Current law requires a three-part test, commonly known as the “ABC” test, to establish that a worker is an independent contractor. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to include provisions within this bill that would codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application.
AB 9 (Reyes). Employment discrimination: limitation of actions.
Summary: The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes specific employment and housing practices unlawful, including discrimination against or harassment of employees and tenants. Current law authorizes a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year from the date upon which the unlawful practice occurred, unless otherwise specified. This bill would extend the above-described period to three years for complaints alleging employment discrimination.
AB 51 (Gonzalez). Employment discrimination: enforcement.
Summary: This bill would prohibit a person from, as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement, prohibiting an applicant for employment, employee, or independent contractor from disclosing to any person an instance of sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract, or otherwise opposing any lawful practice, or from exercising any right or obligation or participating in any investigation or proceeding with respect to unlawful harassment or discrimination.
AB 54 (Ting). Peace officers: video and audio recording: disclosure.
Summary: The California Public Records Act requires that public records be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Current law generally makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements, except that a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident may only be withheld temporarily under specified circumstances. This bill would require the agency to provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording under these circumstances and would allow the agency to withhold the recording for the 45-day period, subject to extensions, as provided by existing law.
AB 71 (Melendez). Employment standards: independent contractors and employees.
Summary: Current case law establishes a three-part test, known as the “ABC” test, for determining whether a worker is considered an independent contractor for the purposes of specified wage orders. Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes: 1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for performance of the work and in fact; 2) that the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and 3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. This bill would instead require a determination of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor to be based on a specific multifactor test, including whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired, and other identified factors.
AB 170 (Gonzalez). Employment: sexual harassment: liability.
Summary: This bill would require a client employer to share, with a labor contractor, all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for harassment for all workers supplied by that labor contractor.
AB 171 (Gonzalez). Employment: sexual harassment.
Summary: This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, discriminating, or retaliating against an employee because of the employee’s status as a victim of sexual harassment. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation based on the employee’s status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking if an employer takes specific actions within 90 days following the date that the victim provides notice to the employer or the employer has actual knowledge of the status.
AB 196 (Gonzalez). Paid family leave.
Summary: Current law establishes, within the state disability insurance program, a family temporary disability insurance program, also known as the paid family leave program, for the provision of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a minor child within one year of birth or placement, as specified. This bill would state the Legislature’s intent to enact legislation that would expand the paid family leave program in order to provide a 100% wage replacement benefit for workers earning $100,000 or less annually.
AB 218 (Gonzalez). Damages: childhood sexual assault: statute of limitations.
Summary: This bill would expand the definition of childhood sexual abuse, which would instead be referred to as childhood sexual assault. This bill would increase the time limit for commencing an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault to 22 years from the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by sexual assault, whichever is later.
SB 142 (Wiener). Employees: lactation accommodation.
Summary: This bill would require the California Building Standards Commission to adopt prescribed mandatory building standards for the installation of lactation space for employees in nonresidential buildings newly constructed or remodeled for workplace occupancy.
The Authority will continue to monitor these bills and others as the legislative session continues.
If you have any questions, please contact Abraham Han, Administrative Analyst.
The Court Report
Access to Private Entity Records is Not Enough to Compel Disclosure Obligations Under the California Public Records Act
By Denise Bazzano, Chad W. Herrington, Thomas D. Jex, Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP
The Court of Appeal, Second District (Div. 7), recently held that the City of Los Angeles’ mere right to access certain records of a private entity was not enough to establish that the City had constructive possession of the records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). (Cynthia Anderson-Barker v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, B 285391, January 22, 2019 (WL 276051)). This case provides guidance on whether a public agency is responsible for providing the records of a private entity, such as a consultant or vendor, in responding to a CPRA request and serves as an important reminder to have clear language in contracts relating to ownership of all records, including electronically stored data. Public agencies should carefully review the language contained in contracts with private entities to ensure that there are clear provisions addressing the ownership of records and that the obligations are appropriate given the nature of the contract. Taking these steps now will prevent confusion and delay when a CPRA request is filed seeking documents retained by a private entity.
The case arises from a CPRA request made by Cynthia Anderson-Barker (“Barker”), a civil rights and criminal defense attorney, to the City of Los Angeles (“City”) seeking electronically-stored data relating to vehicles that private towing companies had impounded at the direction of the City. The City uses numerous privately-owned companies to tow and store impounded vehicles (“POCs”). The POCs store impoundment data electronically in a database known as the Vehicle Information Impound Center (“VIIC”). The VIIC, however, is on a server owned by another private entity, the Official Police Garage Association of Los Angeles (“OPGLA”) which is comprised of POCs. The impounding POC also scans a form prepared by the City into a database called “Laserfiche,” which is owned and maintained by an independent document storage company OPGLA contracts with to store POC-related documents. The City contracts directly with the POC for tow services and those contracts specify that the City is allowed to access the VIIC and Laserfiche databases without notice and 24 hours a day. The contracts also specify that the data contained on the VIIC and Laserfiche databases are owned by the POC.
The trial court concluded that the evidence showed that the City did not have a duty to disclose the requested data because it did not possess or control the VIIC or Laserfiche records. In reviewing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal focused on whether the City had a “right to control the records,” [as discussed in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 609, 623], which would establish constructive possession of records subject to disclosure under the CPRA. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the mere ability of the City to access the VIIC and Laserfiche databases was not enough to establish that the City had a right to control the records. Access alone did not equate to a form of possession or control and the Court of Appeal found that “[t]o conclude otherwise would effectively transform any privately-held information that a state or local agency has contracted to access into a disclosable public record. Nothing in the text or history of the CPRA suggests it was intended to apply so broadly.” In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeal cited the Forsham v. Harris (1980) 445 U.S. 169, 186, a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, which held that FOIA only applies to records an agency has “in fact [created] or obtain[ed] and not to records which merely could have been obtained.” While the Court of Appeal indicated that the City might have had a duty under the CPRA to disclose any data extracted from the VIIC or Laserfiche databases and utilized by the City, the City’s right to access the databases was not enough to establish that the City had constructive possession of the data for purposes of obligating the City to produce that data under the CPRA.
Getting Ready for Summertime
By Alex Mellor, Risk Manager
With summer just around the corner, this is an opportune time to begin thinking about managing risk associated with increased use of public facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and swimming pools.
Parks & Playgrounds
Ensuring the safety of our children while they enjoy the parks and playgrounds in our communities is of paramount importance. Therefore, this is a great time of the year to review your agency’s written Parks and Playground Inspection and Maintenance Program, ensure that periodic inspections are being conducted and documented, and take any necessary corrective action. A Parks and Playground Inspection and Maintenance Program template can be found in the Resources and Documents section of the California JPIA website.
If playgrounds owned or maintained by your agency have not received an audit from a Certified Playground Safety Inspector (CPSI), this should be made a priority to ensure your playgrounds meet nationally recognized standards. You can locate a CPSI in your area through the National Recreation and Park Association website (NPRA).
Injuries that occur at member-owned swimming pools and aquatic centers have the potential to be both traumatic and costly. This exposure can be managed in several ways:
- Ensure lifeguards are trained to follow specific operational and emergency procedures, and possess current lifeguard and first aid/CPR certifications. In addition, regular in-service trainings provide lifeguards with a simulated experience of potential real-world incidents including victim retrieval and unruly patron intervention.
- Inspect the pool, locker rooms, showers and other areas of the facility on a periodic basis to identify and correct any hazards such as broken glass, bodily fluids, and inappropriate behavior.
- Ensure that rescue equipment such as backboards, rescue tubes, and throw ropes are readily accessible and that staff have been trained in the effective use of these devices.
Larger crowds coupled with an increase in temperatures during summer months makes it more likely that agency staff will have to respond to an ill or injured member of the public or fellow employee. The odds of a favorable outcome can be improved by ensuring that key staff are formally trained in First Aid, CPR and AED use. The California JPIA offers American Heart Association (AHA) First Aid, CPR and AED training to members at no additional cost. The AHA requires re-training every two years, so if it’s been a while since your employees received this training, it would be a good idea to review your records and determine if certifications have expired.
Special Events Program
Summertime also brings with it an increase in the number of special events hosted by public agencies. Event organizers or members of the public wishing to use member-owned facilities may have difficulty obtaining minimum liability insurance limits recommended by the California JPIA (typically $1 million per occurrence). This is where our Special Events Program can help. The program provides liability insurance when member-owned premises are used for special events or short-term activities. Examples include weddings, art festivals, parades, yoga classes, and member-sponsored events such as fairs, carnivals, and swap-meets. There is no deductible for this coverage, and members are automatically added as additional insured. For more information, visit the Special Events page of the California JPIA web site.
If you have questions or would like more information, please contact your assigned regional Risk Manager.
< Back to Full Issue Print Article