In April of 2007, I was involved in a six-car pileup on the freeway. I was car five of six. Emergency services were required for the driver of the vehicle in front of me. The remainder of the individuals involved were able to walk or drive away from the accident. As you’d imagine with an accident of this nature, there was much wrangling with insurance companies. Except for the driver behind me – she didn’t have car insurance. As a result, damages to my car, which was totaled, were not covered. I won a judgment against the driver in the car behind me, and had the opportunity to obtain restitution. But, “blood from a turnip” was a piece of advice that stuck with me. My insurance company covered damages to the vehicle immediately in front of me, and the claims were closed in the middle of 2007. Or so I thought.
Fast forward two years to April of 2009. I receive correspondence addressed to “whom it may concern” from the local municipality that provided emergency services. The correspondence explains Minnesota Statute § 415.01, subd 2, allows cities to charge for emergency services to non-residents if they pass a city ordinance authorizing such action. If payment is not received within 30 days, Minnesota Statute § 366.011 provides a city may use lawful means to collect the debt, and Minnesota Statute § 366.012 provides a city can certify unpaid amounts against real property owned by the debtor. The correspondence goes on further to explain that such an ordinance was passed by the city in January of 2007 and provides that each party in an accident shall pay $350 per hour per fire department vehicle. Within the correspondence is a bill for $350 for a “Fire Service Billing” and a suggestion to submit a claim to my insurance company.
Needless to say, I was not happy. I didn’t yell or scream, rather I took the high road and wrote a letter to the city fire chief explaining my position. I did this within a week of receipt of the initial correspondence. I explained that I received no emergency services, and that in fact, I was not approached or assisted by the fire department, and that I suffered no injuries in the accident, and my vehicle was not at risk of fire. I also explained my belief that billing over two years after an accident was not fair nor equitable governance by the city, and that the suggestion to submit a claim to my insurance company two years after the claim was laughable. I further suggested that six vehicles times $350 per vehicle resulted in $2,100 collected for a six vehicle accident that involved no fire, no threat of fire, and a single injury (read back surgery aggravated). I explained I found it difficult to understand how the fee was equitable when the fire department provides similar services and often more services to most in the city through annual property taxes of less than $2,100.00 per year alloted to fire services.
I did not hear from the city, and believed they had reviewed my correspondence and decided that my position was correct, and I should not be assessed the $350. Imagine my surprise this morning, when I received notice that the city would be increasing the fee to $510, and assessing the full amount against the real estate where I live. I immediately wrote to the fire chief and the city administrator via email expressing my disbelief that they did not reply to my correspondence, and instead increased the fee and were going to assess the property where I live. I also explained that they were assessing property that I did not own, but rather were assessing property in which I am a tenant. Interestingly enough, the property is owned by a local law firm [imagine the letter they wanted to send to the city]. The fire chief responded to my email and said that they city’s position is that even though over two years passed, there was not a statute of limitations and I was a party at the scene and “it was determined by the responders through a visual observation or verbal contact with you that you were ok, however we did respond, we did check on you, and the city incurred an expense providing a response.” My thought: I’m glad that you responded, but to send me a bill for $350.00 to visually observe me standing in the ditch of a freeway (they didn’t get within 50 feet of me), and mentally note I looked okay seems excessive. The position of the city is that I received a service (they looked at me apparently from 50 feet away), and thus am responsible for payment of the fee.
In reading the Minnesota Statutes and the City Ordinances, the city is correct in their position. I did receive the service (if you call visual observation from over 50′ away service), and they are within their rights to charge me a fee for this service. I have since written to the finance director of the city to arrange removal of any assessment against real estate not owned by me (interestingly, the city assumed that since I live in a house, I must own the property), to arrange a reduction in the fee to the $350 (which was increased by my non-payment predicated by their non-response to my dispute), and to arrange my payment.
I’m still quite perturbed by this situation, and still am tossing around the idea of taking the city to small claims court. It seems a person can get in an accident, be seen from a distance at the scene of the accident by emergency personal, and receive a bill for services rendered in the amount of $350. To make matters better, it’s all within the rights of the city. However, it sure seems like a financial fishing trip by the city. If I would have received the invoice within a timely manner (say 90 days), I certainly would have been more willing to make full payment. However, two years later? If I pulled a stunt like that in our business, I’d be out of business in no time at all.
The bad news is that I’m going to be $350 lighter thanks to the city. The good news is that I’m now familiar with this practice, and have vowed that I will do something about it. My plan is to work directly with my State Representative and State Senator to get the statute amended to include language that claims for emergency services rendered must be made within 90 days by the agency providing said services. I’m not sure what the results will be, but it’s ridiculous that a city can send an invoice for an accident that occurred over two years ago.