Cal. Codes » Government Code / TITLE 1. GENERAL / DIVISION 3.6. CLAIMS AND ACTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES / PART 2. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES / CHAPTER 1. General Provisions Relating to Liability / ARTICLE 4. Indemnification of Public Employees
California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 825 (2026)

Indemnification of Public Employees

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, if an employee or former employee of a public entity requests the public entity to defend him or her against any claim or action against him or her for an injury arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity and the request is made in writing not less than 10 days before the day of trial, and the employee or former employee reasonably cooperates in good faith in the defense of the claim or action, the public entity shall pay any judgment based thereon or any compromise or settlement of the claim or action to which the public entity has agreed.

If the public entity conducts the defense of an employee or former employee against any claim or action with his or her reasonable good-faith cooperation, the public entity shall pay any judgment based thereon or any compromise or settlement of the claim or action to which the public entity has agreed. However, where the public entity conducted the defense pursuant to an agreement with the employee or former employee reserving the rights of the public entity not to pay the judgment, compromise, or settlement until it is established that the injury arose out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity, the public entity is required to pay the judgment, compromise, or settlement only if it is established that the injury arose out of an act or omission occurring in the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity.

Nothing in this section authorizes a public entity to pay that part of a claim or judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages.

(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following:

(1)The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or former employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity.

(2)At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the public entity.

(3)Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the public entity.

As used in this subdivision with respect to an entity of state government, “a decision of the governing body” means the approval of the Legislature for payment of that part of a judgment that is for punitive damages or exemplary damages, upon recommendation of the appointing power of the employee or former employee, based upon the finding by the Legislature and the appointing authority of the existence of the three conditions for payment of a punitive or exemplary damages claim. The provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 965.6 shall apply to the payment of any claim pursuant to this subdivision.

The discovery of the assets of a public entity and the introduction of evidence of the assets of a public entity shall not be permitted in an action in which it is alleged that a public employee is liable for punitive or exemplary damages.

The possibility that a public entity may pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive damages shall not be disclosed in any trial in which it is alleged that a public employee is liable for punitive or exemplary damages, and that disclosure shall be grounds for a mistrial.

(c)Except as provided in subdivision (d), if the provisions of this section are in conflict with the provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4 of Title 1, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action, except that if those provisions of a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the provisions shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.

(d)The subject of payment of punitive damages pursuant to this section or any other provision of law shall not be a subject of meet and confer under the provisions of Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4 of Title 1, or pursuant to any other law or authority.

(e)Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 818 prohibiting the award of punitive damages against a public entity. This section shall not be construed as a waiver of a public entity’s immunity from liability for punitive damages under Section 1981, 1983, or 1985 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

(f)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), a public entity shall not pay a judgment, compromise, or settlement arising from a claim or action against an elected official, if the claim or action is based on conduct by the elected official by way of tortiously intervening or attempting to intervene in, or by way of tortiously influencing or attempting to influence the outcome of, any judicial action or proceeding for the benefit of a particular party by contacting the trial judge or any commissioner, court-appointed arbitrator, court-appointed mediator, or court-appointed special referee assigned to the matter, or the court clerk, bailiff, or marshal after an action has been filed, unless he or she was counsel of record acting lawfully within the scope of his or her employment on behalf of that party. Notwithstanding Section 825.6, if a public entity conducted the defense of an elected official against such a claim or action and the elected official is found liable by the trier of fact, the court shall order the elected official to pay to the public entity the cost of that defense.

(2)If an elected official is held liable for monetary damages in the action, the plaintiff shall first seek recovery of the judgment against the assets of the elected official. If the elected official’s assets are insufficient to satisfy the total judgment, as determined by the court, the public entity may pay the deficiency if the public entity is authorized by law to pay that judgment.

(3)To the extent the public entity pays any portion of the judgment or is entitled to reimbursement of defense costs pursuant to paragraph (1), the public entity shall pursue all available creditor’s remedies against the elected official, including garnishment, until that party has fully reimbursed the public entity.

(4)This subdivision shall not apply to any criminal or civil enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by an elected district attorney, city attorney, or attorney general.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 8× “After deliberating for two days, the City Council voted to pay the punitive damage award pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 825 (b). Trevino then filed a lawsuit against the officers involved, the Councilmembers and the City under 42 U.”
City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981). “[30] A number of state statutes requiring municipal corporations to indemnify their employees for adverse judgments rendered as a result of performance of governmental duties specifically exclude indemnification for malicious or willful misconduct by the employees.”
Farmers Ins. Grp. v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 906 P.2d 440 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “" (Gov. Code, §§ 825, subd. (a), 825.2, subd.”
California Corr. Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga, 181 Cal. App. 4th 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “3d 834 , that held that the indemnification provisions of the Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 825) apply whether an action is grounded on the Claims Act or on section 1983.”
Johnson v. State of California, 447 P.2d 352 (Cal. 1968). · cites it 2× “(Gov. Code, § 825.) The California system of indemnification substantially eliminates the concerns of Judge Hand.”
Cotton v. City of Eureka, 860 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “Cal. Gov. Code § 825 (b). The City has yet to decide whether it will indemnify the individual officers for the punitive damage award.”
Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “Council members argued that indemnifying officers against punitive damages on a discretionary, case-by-case basis, in good faith compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 825(b), 16 entitles them to qualified immunity under Trevino *1282 v.”
Calatayud v. State of California, 959 P.2d 360 (Cal. 1998). · cites it 2× “) [11] While individuals would be entitled to a defense and payment of any judgment (Gov. Code, § 825), their governmental employers would incur liability under circumstances in which they would otherwise enjoy protection from suit.”
Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2011). “As the Johnson court explained: Historically, the justification for attaching immunity to "discretionary" actions of public officials was to protect such employees from the spectre of extensive personal tort liability.”
Jason Deocampo v. Jason Potts, 836 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “We have held that, for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, the indemnification obligation imposed by California Government Code Section 825 does not render a personal-capacity suit against a state employee one against the state, and so sovereign immunity does not extend to the…”
Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001). “A city council does not violate section 1983 if it indemnifies officers against punitive damage awards on a discretionary, case by case basis, and complies in good faith with the requirements of Cal. Gov.Code § 825(b). 3 99 F.3d at 918 .”
Grassilli v. Barr, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1260 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “) Under this code section, a public entity may not pay a punitive damages award unless the Legislature makes a specific finding that “[a]t the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the employee .”
Show all 72 citing cases →
Cal. Government Code § 825(a): 4 cases
Cotton v. City of Eureka, 860 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “Cal. Gov. Code § 825 (b). The City has yet to decide whether it will indemnify the individual officers for the punitive damage award.”
Cunningham v. Gates, 989 F. Supp. 1262 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
McDade v. West, 60 F. App'x 146 (9th Cir. 2003).
Martello v. Door, No. B297568 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2021).
Cal. Government Code § 825(b): 14 cases
Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996). “After deliberating for two days, the City Council voted to pay the punitive damage award pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 825 (b). Trevino then filed a lawsuit against the officers involved, the Councilmembers and the City under 42 U.”
Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000). “Council members argued that indemnifying officers against punitive damages on a discretionary, case-by-case basis, in good faith compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 825(b), 16 entitles them to qualified immunity under Trevino *1282 v.”
Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001). “A city council does not violate section 1983 if it indemnifies officers against punitive damage awards on a discretionary, case by case basis, and complies in good faith with the requirements of Cal. Gov.Code § 825(b). 3 99 F.3d at 918 .”
Jason Deocampo v. Jason Potts, 836 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2016). “We have held that, for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, the indemnification obligation imposed by California Government Code Section 825 does not render a personal-capacity suit against a state employee one against the state, and so sovereign immunity does not extend to the…”
Hernandez v. Gates, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.