(a) Each municipality shall protect and save harmless any municipal officer, whether elected or appointed, of any board, committee, council, agency or commission, including any member of a local emergency planning committee appointed from such municipality pursuant to section
22a-601, or any municipal employee, of such municipality from financial loss and expense, including legal fees and costs, if any, arising out of any claim, demand, suit or judgment by reason of alleged negligence, or for alleged infringement of any person's civil rights, on the part of such officer or such employee while acting in the discharge of his duties.
(b) In addition to the protection provided under subsection (a) of this section, each municipality shall protect and save harmless any such municipal officer or municipal employee from financial loss and expense, including legal fees and costs, if any, arising out of any claim, demand or suit instituted against such officer or employee by reason of alleged malicious, wanton or wilful act or ultra vires act, on the part of such officer or employee while acting in the discharge of his duties. In the event such officer or employee has a judgment entered against him for a malicious, wanton or wilful act in a court of law, such municipality shall be reimbursed by such officer or employee for expenses it incurred in providing such defense and shall not be held liable to such officer and employee for any financial loss or expense resulting from such act.
(c) Each such municipality may insure against the liability imposed by this section in any insurance company organized in this state or in any insurance company of another state authorized to write such insurance in this state or may elect to act as self-insurer of such liability.
(d) No action shall be maintained under this section against such municipality or employee unless such action is commenced within two years after the cause of action therefor arose nor unless written notice of the intention to commence such action and of the time when and the place where the damages were incurred or sustained has been filed with the clerk of such municipality within six months after such cause of action has accrued.
(e) For the purposes of this section “municipality” means any town, city, borough, consolidated town and city, consolidated town and borough, district, district department of health, or authority established by the general statutes, a special act or local law, ordinance or charter or any public agency.
(1971, P.A. 726; P.A. 75-408, S. 1; P.A. 77-399; P.A. 80-403, S. 9, 10; P.A. 89-212, S. 11; 89-378.)
History: P.A. 75-408 included both elected and appointed members and included members of councils as well as of board, committees and commissions in indemnification and added claims arising from infringement of civil rights; P.A. 77-399 substituted “municipal officer” for “member” and included officers of agencies and full-time municipal employees, inserted new provisions re protection against alleged malicious, wanton, wilful etc. acts as Subsec. (b), making previous provisions Subsecs. (a) and (c); P.A. 80-403 added Subsec. (d) re limits on notice and commencement of action; P.A. 89-212 amended Subsec. (a) to include members of local emergency planning committees in indemnification; P.A. 89-378 substituted “municipality” for “town, city, borough, consolidated town and city and consolidated town and borough”, added Subsec. (e) defining municipality, extended the protection to part-time employees, and provided for reimbursement to a municipality if a judgment is entered against an officer or employee for a malicious, wanton or wilful act.
See Sec. 7-465 re liability of municipality for damages caused by employees.
See Sec. 10-235 re indemnification of school personnel.
See Sec. 52-557n re liability of an employee, officer or agent of a political subdivision of the state.
Statute to be given prospective application only. 190 C. 77. Cited. 197 C. 9. Statute does not apply to suits brought by municipalities against their own officers. 200 C. 367. Cited. 214 C. 632; 221 C. 149; 223 C. 731; 229 C. 716; 237 C. 501.
Cited. 1 CA 709; 4 CA 216; 28 CA 277; 38 CA 546. The language “protect and save harmless” establishes a duty to indemnify, not a duty to defend; the cause of action for plaintiff's claim for indemnification accrued, and the six month notice period and the two year limitation period of Subsec. (d) began to run, when plaintiff first could have successfully held defendant liable, which plaintiff could not have done until the prior action concluded; section does not authorize an award of costs expended to enforce the right to indemnification under this section against a municipality. 178 CA 469.
Cited. 39 CS 102; 41 CS 420; Id., 548; 44 CS 477.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case:
Orticelli v. Powers, 495 A.2d 1023 (Conn. 1985).
Orticelli v. Powers, 495 A.2d 1023 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 38× “The trial court rendered summary judgment for the board on the grounds that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued and that his cause of action was barred by both the two year statute of limitations contained in General…”
City of Norwich v. Silverberg, 511 A.2d 336 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 28× “The sole issue on this appeal is a determination of the scope of the indemnification provisions of General Statutes § 7-101a. The plaintiff, the city of Norwich, brought suit against the defendants, Richard N.”
O'Brien v. City of New Haven, 175 A.3d 589 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 115× “These consolidated appeals concern the indemnification provisions of General Statutes § 7-101a. The defendant, the city of New Haven, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, William O'Brien, its former tax assessor, awarding him the attorney's…”
City of West Haven v. Hartford Ins., 602 A.2d 988 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 16× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff city had a legal obligation under *151 General Statutes §§ 7-101a or 7-465 1 to indemnify two city police officers for the punitive damages for which they had been held liable in a federal civil rights suit.”
Ahern v. City of New Haven, 459 A.2d 118 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 10× “This lawsuit poses the question whether municipal employees are protected by the state indemnity statutes; General Statutes §§ 7-101a and 7-465; against claims of civil rights violations alleged to have occurred prior to the date of the enactment of the indemnity statutes.”
Manganella v. Keyes, 613 F. Supp. 795 (D. Conn. 1985).
· cites it 20× “Conn.Gen. Stat. § 7-101a requires that a municipality “protect and save harmless any municipal officer .”
Vibert v. Bd. of Educ., 793 A.2d 1076 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 6× “1990) (“indemnify” means “[t]o save harmless; to secure against loss or damage; to give security for the reimbursement of a person in case of an anticipated loss failing upon him”).”
Grady v. Town of Somers, 984 A.2d 684 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “After giving the defendant notice of his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 7-101a (d), 5 6the plaintiff *329 brought this action for money damages and lost wages, claiming that the defendant had breached its duty to maintain the transfer station in a safe condition by failing…”
Pitchell v. City of Hartford, 722 A.2d 797 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes § 7-101a also places a financial responsibility on the city to pay for damages, legal fees and costs arising out of the negligence of an employee.”
State v. Cain, 613 A.2d 804 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Under current retention schedules, promulgated by the public records administrator, tape recordings of 911 calls must be preserved for thirty days, unless within that period of time a notice of intent to file a claim against a municipality or its employee has been filed with the…”
St. George v. Gordon, 825 A.2d 90 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “The statute is designed to furnish some relief for injustice that would otherwise attend our well-established doctrine of sovereign municipal immunity.”
Perodeau v. City of Hartford, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 848 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” The court dismissed the claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress by the city on the grounds that the plaintiff had not filed a notice of claim as required by General Statutes §§ 7-101a (d) and 7-465 (a).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-101a(a) — 3 cases
O'Brien v. City of New Haven, 175 A.3d 589 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“These consolidated appeals concern the indemnification provisions of General Statutes § 7-101a. The defendant, the city of New Haven, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, William O'Brien, its former tax assessor, awarding him the attorney's…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-101a(b) — 5 cases
O'Brien v. City of New Haven, 175 A.3d 589 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“These consolidated appeals concern the indemnification provisions of General Statutes § 7-101a. The defendant, the city of New Haven, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, William O'Brien, its former tax assessor, awarding him the attorney's…”
Manganella v. Keyes, 613 F. Supp. 795 (D. Conn. 1985).
“Conn.Gen. Stat. § 7-101a requires that a municipality “protect and save harmless any municipal officer .”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-101a(c) — 1 case
O'Brien v. City of New Haven, 175 A.3d 589 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“These consolidated appeals concern the indemnification provisions of General Statutes § 7-101a. The defendant, the city of New Haven, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, William O'Brien, its former tax assessor, awarding him the attorney's…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-101a(d) — 5 cases
O'Brien v. City of New Haven, 175 A.3d 589 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“These consolidated appeals concern the indemnification provisions of General Statutes § 7-101a. The defendant, the city of New Haven, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, William O'Brien, its former tax assessor, awarding him the attorney's…”
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.