G-20 settlement closes books on about $1M paid claimants by Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh paid more for an insurance policy covering the 2009 G-20 economic summit than the insurer paid in lawsuit settlements, but that's not the whole story, a city attorney said Thursday.
Lexington Insurance Co. of Boston paid about $976,000 in settlements to various claimants, and also covered the city's legal costs, said associate city solicitor John Doherty.
“We probably received at least $1.5 million of benefit,” Doherty said.
Doherty said the city paid $1.5 million in premiums for the policy plus six deductibles that added up to about $147,000. The city paid one deductible for each of five lawsuits brought by various groups and individuals and one for a claim that settled before it went to court, he said.
“I think it was a very good investment,” Doherty said.
U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer on Thursday approved a joint motion to dismiss the last G-20-related lawsuit. The city agreed to pay $400,000 to settle the claims of the remaining 13 people who contended mass arrests in Oakland three years ago violated their civil rights.
Twenty-five people represented by the American Civil Liberties Union originally sued the city for the arrests that happened around Schenley Plaza when police broke up a rally marking the end of the global summit.
The city previously paid $88,000 to settle claims from 11 plaintiffs. One dropped her claim without a settlement.
The settlement closes the last of the lawsuits spawned by the city's handling of the summit, said ACLU attorney Sara Rose.
“When cities host meetings of world leaders, they have a duty to accommodate both demonstrator and diplomat,” she said.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.