LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - Enduris seemed to be avoiding paying claims


There have been two articles recently in the U-B reporting on the Port of Walla Walla and its need to find a new insurance carrier.

The first article Aug. 26 (relating to the Aug. 25 bimonthly Port meeting) left much to be told about the reason(s) for the insurance search and most importantly the headache(s) the Port's had as a result of working with its (now former) insurance pool carrier Enduris.

As I read the U-B article, having been at the Port meetings in which the insurance situation had been thoroughly reviewed and consulted on with a team of third-party experts, I recognized the public needed more information prior to creating a realistic opinion on the overall insurance scenario.

As I read I was puzzled by the mention of the "insurance provider's March 10 meeting minutes." Why? Because it was the insurance provider's March 10 meeting (as reported) and not the Port's meeting of March 10. I attended the Port's March 10 meeting and I have no memory of hearing anything about Enduris's meeting notes and specifically the Enduris list of five reasons for cancellation.

The U-B's update article of Sept. 4 regarding the Port's insurance offered a great deal of information, some of it clear and some of it not so clear.

I noted the Port management team was puzzled in reading the U-B article Aug. 26 and first learned of two specific reasons (from a list of five) the insurer considered when determining the cancellation.

The Aug. 26 article stated the Port had failed a list of five reasons. The Sept. 4 article offers a clarification that includes input from Enduris Executive Director Mark Kammers that says "termination of membership can be based on those five factors." He then says "the Port did not necessarily meet all five."

Two meetings took place on the same date (March 10) but they were different meetings, in different towns, with different executives, executives on different sides of insurance coverage. One side was seeking just compensation for insured coverage and one side was seeking to limit how much it paid out.

From the meetings I've attended, listening to the research and consultation the Port requested, it was clear the Port had suffered significant losses (wind and fire) and had claim(s) appropriate to the coverage it had purchased.

From the meetings I've attended, from the reports and input from the third-party consultants, it seemed to the audience that Enduris was attempting to avoid or delay paying claim amounts deemed reasonable by the third-party consultants. Furthermore, from the meetings I've attended, it was apparent the Port and its consultants were communicating with Enduris.

R.L. McFarland

Walla Walla


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in