75-6109.
Same; indemnification of employee acting within scope of employment; no punitive or exemplary damages; recovery or defense costs by governmental entity.
Except as otherwise provided in the Kansas [tort] claims act, a governmental entity is liable, and shall indemnify its employees against damages, for injury or damage proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee while acting within the scope of his or her employment. A governmental entity shall not be liable under the provisions of this act for any punitive or exemplary damages against an employee, nor for payment of any costs, judgments or settlements which are paid through an applicable contract or policy of insurance. The governmental entity shall have the right to recover any payments made by it for any judgment, or portion thereof, and costs or fees incurred by or on behalf of an employee's defense if the employee fails to cooperate in good faith in the defense of the claim or action or if the trier of fact finds that the act or omission of the employee was because of such employee's actual fraud or actual malice.
History:
L. 1979, ch. 186, § 9; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Jackson v. City of Kansas City, 680 P.2d 877 (Kan. 1984).
· cites it 15× “DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN ORDERING THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY TO INDEMNIFY FIREMEN JACKSON AND DEKEYSER AND TO PAY THEIR ATTORNEY FEES? *310 In reliance on K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 75-6109, the City contends Jackson and DeKeyser (the two drivers) did not cooperate in good faith in the…”
Nash v. Blatchford, 435 P.3d 562 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 75-6109. Even if the injured party intends to sue only the employee, he or she still must give notice to the municipality, allowing the government entity to promptly investigate and pursue settlement on behalf of its employee—avoiding indemnification liability.”
Schreiner v. Hodge, 504 P.3d 410 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 2× “It ensures this result by requiring that the government pay for the employee's legal defense and indemnify the employee against damages even when an injured party names only the employee in a lawsuit.”
K.D.F. v. Rex, 878 S.W.2d 589 (Tex. 1994).
“1994); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 75-6109 (1989). However, indirect liability for the acts of employees is limited in both states.”
Jones v. Courtney, 466 F. App'x 696 (10th Cir. 2012).
“” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6109 . The second provision cited by Mr.”
King v. Pimentel, 890 P.2d 1217 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
“75-6108, K.S.A. 75-6109, and K.S.A. 75-6116. The notice of claim requirement in K.”
Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F. Supp. 1096 (D. Kan. 1996).
“75-6108, K.S.A. 75-6109, and K.S.A. 75-6116. The notice of claim requirement in K.”
Couser v. Somers (D. Kan. 2020).
· cites it 23× “Plaintiff’s Position In her initial motion, Plaintiff seeks to accomplish two primary goals through amendment: 1) replace McPherson and Harvey Counties and the related sheriff’s offices as parties (all of which were dismissed), with the counties’ boards of commissioners; and 2)…”
Beck v. Calvillo, 671 F. Supp. 1555 (D. Kan. 1987).
“Accordingly, this court holds that K.S.A. 75-6109 does not present an eleventh amendment bar to section 1983 suits against Jack Pearson in his individual capacity.”
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.