Three deputies allegedly assaulted a man. The employing county provided a defense for them under a reservation of rights, and then refused to indemnify and pay the resulting judgment for battery and civil rights violations of $255,000 in compensatory damages on the ground that the employees acted with actual malice. Punitive damages of $50,000 were also awarded against each deputy. The deputies sued the county for indemnification. An intermediate California appeals court ruled that an employer’s reservation of the right to indemnity from the employee for acts committed with actual fraud, corruption or actual malice is necessarily a reservation of the right not to indemnify the employee for such acts, and reversed a trial court ruling awarding indemnification. The county showed that the jury found the deputies acted with actual malice, or at the very least, a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the deputies acted with malice, Chang v. County of Los Angeles, #B261194, 1 Cal. App. 5th 25, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 539.
     The highest court in New York ruled that a municipality in the state may withdraw from defending or indemnifying current and former officials and employees in a civil lawsuit if they fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer. While the context of the case was not law enforcement activity, the reasoning would appear to also apply in that context. Lancaster v. Incorporated Village of Freeport, #181, 2013 N.Y. Lexis 3156, 2013 NY Slip Op 7652.
     A man was convicted of rape and kidnapping on the basis of testimony by a police forensic chemist that hair and semen found at the scene of the crime were consistent with samples taken from him. Seventeen years later, the man's conviction was vacated based on exculpatory DNA results. The chemist's own lab tests indicated that she should have excluded him as a possible suspect. In a federal civil rights lawsuit against the chemist and the city that employed her, the arrestee was awarded $16.5 million against the chemist. The city was found not liable. The chemist filed an indemnification cross-claim against the city, but settled it for $23,364.29 without the plaintiff's participation. A federal appeals court has upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaintiff's attempt to directly seek indemnification on his judgment against the chemist from the city, since there was no evidence of deliberate indifference by the city and the plaintiff was not the real party in interest on the chemist's indemnification cross-claim. Bryson v. Oklahoma City, #09-6143, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24822 (10th Cir.).
     A jury in a federal civil rights lawsuit found that an officer used excessive force against an arrestee and committed assault and battery under state law by striking the plaintiff in the face three times while other officers detained him. In state court, claims for indemnification under Pennsylvania state law were rejected on the basis that officer had been found, by the jury, to have engaged in willful misconduct. The officer did not use the force employed for the purpose of effecting the arrest or maintaining the detention of the arrestee, but rather because he perceived the arrestee to be a "smart aleck," which fell outside of the scope of conduct for which indemnification was provided. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2186 C.D. 2006, 2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 625.
     City had no obligation under Pennsylvania law to indemnify a police officer found liable for excessive use of force which did not occur in connection with an arrest, but which instead was simply an assault and battery of the plaintiff by the officer for the intentional purpose of harming and punishing him. Under the statute, there is no duty for a municipality to indemnify an officer for conduct which amounts to a crime or willful misconduct. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2272, 2006 Phil. Ct. Com. Pl. Lexis 439 (Philadelphia County, Pa.). [N/R]
     Motorists who alleged that they were injured in a collision caused by the police engaging in a high-speed pursuit of another motorist could not pursue, under Connecticut state law, a claim against the town for indemnification of the officers without directly bringing claims against the town's employees or agents (the officers). The defendant town's motion for summary judgment was therefore granted. Gaudino v. Town of East Hartford, No. 24660, 865 A.2d 470 (Conn. App. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when he allegedly injured a deputy sheriff at a defensive tactics training program by placing him in a neck restraint, causing him to fall. He was therefore not entitled to defense and indemnification by the county which employed him in a personal injury lawsuit filed against him by the deputy. Riehle v. County of Cattaraugus, 794 N.Y.S.2d 186 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2005). [N/R]
     City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, and city police officers, sued for actions they took in their official capacities, were entitled to coverage under a Missouri State Legal Expense Fund for the cost of defending against the lawsuits, and for any judgments against them. Smith v. State of Missouri, No. SC 86050, 152 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. en banc 2005). [N/R]
     County did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in terminating the coverage of a sheriff's department employee under an ordinance concerning defense and indemnification in lawsuits against employees acting in their official capacity when the employee allegedly failed to fully cooperate with the county attorney and deliberately withheld information from the attorney in replying to interrogatories concerning his prior work history. Baker v. Gwinnett County, No. A04A0048, 600 S.E.2d 819 (Ga. App. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court reverses trial judge's grant of summary judgment to city in lawsuit brought by female motorist who claimed that police officer broke into her home and sexually assaulted her after obtaining her home address from her driver's license during traffic stop which might have been aimed solely at finding out where she lived. Court speculates that Illinois Supreme Court might find that the officer, because of his assertion of his official authority, acted within the scope of his employment, triggering a duty, on the part of the city, to indemnify the officer for any judgment against him. Doe v. City of Chicago, No. 03-2221, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 3811 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
     Plaintiff awarded damages against police officer in federal civil rights lawsuit did not have the ability, after officer withdrew his demand for indemnification from the county, to pursue the application for indemnification on his own behalf. Lampkin v. Little, No. 03-7000, 85 Fed. Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Illinois Supreme Court rules that counties are required to pay judgments entered against a sheriff's office in an official capacity whether the case was settled or litigated. Under Illinois law, a sheriff has the authority to settle and compromise claims against the sheriff's office. The court acted to answer a certified question of law submitted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case where the county attempted to contest an attempt to make it pay a $500,000 settlement entered into by a sheriff in a federal civil rights lawsuit after claims against the county were dismissed. Carver v. Condie, #97-2731, 169 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1999). Carver v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, No. 91108, 787 N.E.2d 127 (Ill. 2003). [N/R]
     City properly denied defense and indemnification of police officer when evidence showed that the officer acted for personal rather than work related reasons in conduct that resulted in the arrest of two female bar patrons after one of them allegedly rejected the officer's advances. In the Matter of Schenectady Police Benevolent Association v. City of Schenectady, 750 N.Y.S.2d 666 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
     City's refusal to indemnify officer in case where jury awarded $605,001 in excessive force lawsuit over incident in which arrestee died of brain injury was not arbitrary or capricious. City's own investigation determined that the officer acted intentionally, relieving it of the duty of defending and indemnifying him. City was not barred from raising this defense to indemnification by its own prior denial, in the underlying lawsuit, that the officer had acted intentionally or recklessly. Banks v. Yokemick, 2214 F. Supp. 22d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court orders further proceedings to determine whether Native American tribal police who had a commission from the county sheriff's office was entitled to indemnification from the county under the Oklahoma state Tort Claims Act, 51 Okl. Stat. Ann. Sec. 162, subd. B, pars. 1, 4c, after a jury returned a verdict against him in an arrestee's excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The fact that the jury concluded that he used excessive force and the trial court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity were insufficient to preclude indemnification or to require a finding that the officer acted in bad faith. Lampkin v. Little, #01-7018, 01-7019, 286 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     343:100 Under state statute, city had to indemnify officers for $234,671.56 in damages awarded against them in federal civil rights lawsuit, but indemnification statute did not require city to pay an award of $191,628.75 in attorneys' fees, Illinois Supreme Court rules. Yang v. City of Chicago, No. 88656, 745 N.E.2d 541 (Ill. 2001).
     346:147 Los Angeles arrestee could pursue federal civil rights claims against present and former city council members and current and former city attorneys, based on their role in allegedly deciding in "bad faith" to indemnify police officers assessed punitive damages by juries in past civil rights lawsuits. Blumberg v. Gates, 144 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
     343:101 City legislators are not entitled to qualified immunity if they act in bad faith in indemnifying police officers against awards of punitive damages in federal civil rights lawsuits for misconduct. Navarro v. Block, No. 99-55623, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001).
     322:149 Illinois county could contest attempt to make it pay $500,000 settlement entered into by sheriff in federal civil rights lawsuit after claims against the county were dismissed. Carver v. Condie, #97-2731, 169 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1999).
     310:148 Successful civil rights plaintiff's petition seeking indemnification, pursuant to state statute, from municipality for judgment against officers was not a "new lawsuit," but rather an "ancillary" proceeding of original federal civil rights lawsuit; trial court therefore erred in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over it. Yang v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 1998).
     305:67 City liable for award of $50,000 in damages and $400,000 in attorneys' fees against police commander who allegedly tortured suspect in murder of two officers in order to get him to confess; state statute required indemnification of employee acting within scope of his employment; convicted cop killer further awarded $50,000 in damages and $500,000 in attorneys' fee in judgment against other officer which city also paid for. Wilson v. City of Chicago, 120 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 1997).
     275:167 Jury instruction informing it that city would indemnify officer for compensatory damages and attorney's statement to jury that city could indemnify officer for punitive damages required new trial on issue of compensatory and punitive damages awarded in federal civil rights suit against officer by detainee. Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513 (9th Cir. 1994).
     {N/R} Jury's award of punitive damages against officer was insufficient to establish "willful misconduct" precluding officer from obtaining indemnification from city under Pennsylvania law Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 641 A.2d 289 (Pa 1994).
     California state statute requiring public employers to pay judgments against employees only applies in situations in which employer provides a legal defense for the employee; city was therefore not liable for judgment against officer for $5825 million in case where officer who man and city declined to defend after finding that officer acted outside the scope of his employment Rivas v. City of Kerman, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 147 (Cal App. 1992).