After calling an expert who asked not to be named, I’ve learned that one problem is that the city doesn’t have power over how insurance handles the claims, how liability is determined, or how damages are awarded. My source educated me about what might be happening behind the scenes.

First, the city of Smithfield pays an insurance company in order to protect itself and its citizens from accidents; Utah Local Governments Trust (ULGT). As Marchant wrote, this governmental entity provides liability coverage to municipalities. My source estimated that Smithfield pays $35,000-$40,000 per year to ULGT. Marchant also noted that ULGT uses third-party adjusters to determine liability. In Smithfield’s case, the adjuster is Ryan VenHuizen of Constitution State Services (CSS), who lives three states away, in Texas.

It is highly unlikely that the adjuster came in person to investigate the site at all, much less in a timely enough manner to inspect the malfunction that caused the flood in the first place. He most likely read reports and viewed photos after the fact. Such armchair investigation makes finding clear liability nearly impossible.

Hiring an off-site adjuster is a smart move for an insurance company that doesn’t want to pay out on claims. It would be impossible to find the city liable without the adjuster doing an in-person inspection at the scene.

But this is all part of the song and dance many insurance companies play in order to keep from paying out on things that might be erroneously linked to them. Some would say such tactics are justified to protect from insurance fraud. I’m not sure the Smithfield citizens with 24 inches of sewage in their basements would agree.

An ongoing investigation of the situation is underway. If the valve bonnet that broke were properly maintained and within its good life use, a manufacturer might be deemed liable. If the valve bonnet were incorrectly installed or maintenance was neglected, the city might be liable. If an act of God, like a severe flood or earthquake, overcame the properly maintained and relatively new equipment, the city would unquestionably be absolved of liability. Unfortunately, the citizens must wait for the investigative findings to know how to go forward.

One thing is certain, the lack of specific and detailed investigation by the adjuster has left the city’s hands tied. If the insurance company doesn’t find fault with the city, Smithfield can’t do a thing about it. By contract, the city cannot publicly disagree with the insurance company’s findings, lest it risk losing legal insurance protections. If the city violated that contract, any findings against the city would have to be paid from the general fund. That’s not a practical option for a municipality, which is why Smithfield pays that estimated $35,000-$40,000 in insurance every year.

To me, that makes ULGT and CSS the bad guy. But again, my source said that might not be entirely right. When liability is clearly found, the insurance company usually pays out. But in this case, where liability is uncertain, they may wait and take their chances in court.

My source said ultimately, the legal system would be the only thing that could require ULGT (or Smithfield City) to pay out in this situation. That would only happen if a lawsuit were filed.

A lawsuit, you ask? Isn’t that going a little too far? Who would sue the city of Smithfield? I know it seems harsh, but to me it seems like the residents’ last option to recoup their losses.

The reader should be aware that I am not a legal expert and would not pretend to give legal counsel to anyone. That said, my source and I hypothetically discussed what might happen if the residents of Smithfield, individually or collectively, were to hire a lawyer and sue the city because of the flood damages.

Would it hurt the city? My source said no. ULGT would have the responsibility of defending the city of Smithfield in civil court. Depending on the findings of the investigation, the judge might rule for or against the city. If the judge ruled against the city, UGLT would have to pay. The claim might negatively affect Smithfield’s insurance rates, but the damages awarded would be paid by the insurance company.

Whether or not the city’s employees and leaders want to help, their hands are tied until the insurance company is forced to pay, either by clear liability or because of a court ruling.

So how does this finish now? If it were my basement reeking with the stench of a city’s sewage, I would wait for the investigation to unfold, study the report, and pay for legal advice from a lawyer that I trust.

Whatever residents decide to do going forward, I hope they can rest easier knowing the city of Smithfield isn’t the villain. This columnist is crossing her fingers that after this messy chapter is over, the citizens affected will find a happy ending.

Kate E Anderson is a mother of five living in North Logan. She can be reached at katecole9@yahoo.com.