Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defendant in Civil Rights Case

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    NYS usually does not intercede on the part of LEOs when they are involved in personal actions and took no police action. Here the poster states he did nothing but call the local PD. The plaintiff’s main complaint must be against the responding agency. She must prove that they acted only because our plaintiff is a Police Officer in another jurisdiction. If the plaintiff had taken police action, his agency would be named in any lawsuit and would then defend him.

    Comment


    • #17
      There is an important distinction that needs to be understood when discussing these issues.

      Your employing agency (department, city, county, state, etc) does not defend you, the agency defends itself. Any attention to defense of an individual officer is incidental to defending the employer.

      If your employer carries liability insurance (either individually or via a pool of employers) the insurance company defends itself against claims. Any attention to defense of the individual or agency is incidental to limiting the insuror's exposure.

      There are some individual and group insurance plans offered to officers or associations of officers. If you purchase such a plan you must understand that the insurance company's first concern will be limiting its own exposure to liability claims, thus any defense of you (the policyholder) is incidental.

      Many claims are made and many lawsuits are filed. Most amount to nothing more than an irritation or interruption of your schedule. In many cases the employer or insurance company makes a decision to settle the claim for "nuisance value", i.e.: something less than they might expect to pay out for legal fees and court costs to defend the claim. That nuisance value is exactly what many claimants and their attorneys are looking for when they file the lawsuits.

      In major claims there may be a tendency to select someone to throw under the bus, if that is what it takes to reach a settlement.

      I noticed in several prior comments that some folks refer to one's employer "defending you", which prompted me to add these comments. Any defense provided to you, as an individual, will always be incidental to the employer defending the employer or the insurance company limiting its exposure. If you want or need individual representation of your personal interests that will always require opening up your checkbook to retain your own attorney.

      Comment


      • #18
        Not true in all states. Officers acting in the scope of their employment in CA are covered by, and protected by, the agency insurance, as long as they are within policy...and sometimes even then.
        Now go home and get your shine box!

        Comment


        • #19
          In NYS, most agencies self-insure or have a policy that covers the agency and its employees. Here the poster took no official police action and his agency was not involved. No reason for the agency to be involved.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
            In NYS, most agencies self-insure or have a policy that covers the agency and its employees. Here the poster took no official police action and his agency was not involved. No reason for the agency to be involved.
            He was bound by department policy and a directive NOT to take action. He was acting under orders at the time... the order was just not to do anything.
            "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

            "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

            Comment


            • #21
              Does not put any liability on the officer or the agency. A directive not to take action when off duty, if obeyed, is not a reason to sue either the officer or his agency. Especially by the defendant.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                Does not put any liability on the officer or the agency. A directive not to take action when off duty, if obeyed, is not a reason to sue either the officer or his agency. Especially by the defendant.
                ...and yet, according to the OP, here we are.

                I think there's more here that we're being told but IF what the OP says is true I don't see how or why his department wouldn't cover him... unless policies, general orders, directives and the like don't apply off duty.
                "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                Comment


                • #23
                  The plaintiff must at least allege that the NY officer took some official police action for his agency to be involved. If all she is alleging is the he called the local PD, then her claim is against that agency.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

                    ...and yet, according to the OP, here we are.

                    I think there's more here that we're being told but IF what the OP says is true I don't see how or why his department wouldn't cover him... unless policies, general orders, directives and the like don't apply off duty.
                    There’s nothing more to the story. My department made the recommendation to the State Attorney to represent me. The State Attorney looked at it for two days and came back and said no, we can’t cover you because you were not in your official capacity. My union has helped me, but at some point I’m sure it’ll get too expensive for them to continue funding.

                    As far as my renter’s insurance they won’t cover me because it went into effect the month after her arrest. That’s when they’re saying that claim started. I could fight it but I don’t have the resources to fight a battle on two fronts here.

                    I have engaged an attorney. He’s doing all he can to keep costs down. Wre trying to get it dismissed based on the fact that I’m a private individual. If they don’t dismiss it, it goes to discovery phase. I’m sure that’ll be another $15,000.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Earlier I commented about agencies being required to represent employees in law suits brought against them for acts performed in their official capacity. I probably should have expanded on what I meant.

                      I understand your department's position that you were not acting in your official capacity (and even share it). At the very least, they should have gone to court on your behalf, if only to state you were not acting in your official capacity or within the scope and course of your duties in this matter, and sought dismissal of the lawsuit against you. Had the court agreed, this would have been resolved. Had the court disagreed, your department would then have been obliged to defend you (and indirectly, itself).

                      It is important that your department do this, because if you have a crappy defense (or no defense because you can't afford it) and the Plaintiff obtains a judgement against you for a tort the court has decided was committed under the color of official right (even if decided by default) your employer is going to be on the hook for damages created by its employee.

                      Your agency was foolish not to provide you (and itself) with this simple and very limited defense.





                      Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Did I miss the remarks, but are you a member of FOP, or does your Agency have an Association, and one of them assist you with retaining Counsel, or at least get you a deal on a Solicitor?
                        #32936 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 1975-10-27 / 2010-12-29
                        Proud Dad of #54266 - RCMP - 2007-02-12 to date
                        RCMP Veterans Association - Regina Division member
                        Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada - Associate (Retired) member
                        "Smile" - no!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          If this is a NY case and if Citykid is a NYS LEO, this is a nothing burger. Especially if the only allegation is a that Citykid just called the locals.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                            If this is a NY case and if Citykid is a NYS LEO, this is a nothing burger. Especially if the only allegation is a that Citykid just called the locals.
                            I hope so. The conspiracy allegation is what the court may look to investigate further, which just keeps the legal fee meter running if this case goes to discovery.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              So much more to this than what was posted...
                              Now go home and get your shine box!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                What conspiracy allegation? That would change everything.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 6514 users online. 233 members and 6281 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X