(1) A local government shall provide for the defense of any employee by an attorney
chosen by the local government in any action in tort arising out of an act or
omission occurring within the scope of his employment of which it has been given
notice pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. The local government shall pay any
judgment based thereon or any compromise or settlement of the action except as
provided in subsection (3) of this section and except that a local government's
responsibility under this section to indemnify an employee shall be subject to the
limitations contained in KRS 65.2002.
(2) Upon receiving service of a summons and complaint in any action in tort brought
against him, an employee shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of service, give
written notice of such action in tort to the executive authority of the local
government.
(3) A local government may refuse to pay a judgment or settlement in any action
against an employee, or if a local government pays any claim or judgment against
any employee pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, it may recover from such
employee the amount of such payment and the costs to defend if:
(a) The employee acted or failed to act because of fraud, malice, or corruption;
(b) The action was outside the actual or apparent scope of his employment;
(c) The employee willfully failed or refused to assist the defense of the cause of
action, including the failure to give notice to the executive authority of the
local government pursuant to subsection (2) of this section;
(d) The employee compromised or settled the claim without the approval of the
governing body of the local government; or
(e) The employee obtained private counsel without the consent of the local
government, in which case, the local government may also refuse to pay any
legal fees incurred by the employee.
Effective: July 15, 1994
History: Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 233, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1994. -- Created
1988 Ky. Acts ch. 224, sec. 20, effective July 15, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case:
Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 8× “2004, and KRS 65.2005 expressly or impliedly waive a county’s immunity from vicarious liability.”
Richardson v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 260 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 9× “KRS 65.2005 states that: (1) A local government shall provide for the defense of any employee by an attorney chosen by the local government in any action in tort arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his employment of which it has been given notice…”
Pearlie Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky., 25 F.4th 391 (6th Cir. 2022).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(1). The district court dismissed this claim with prejudice at the pleading stage, holding that the Kentucky statute does not permit a tort plaintiff to sue a county over the county’s statutory duty to indemnify its tortfeasor employees.”
Ashby v. City of Louisville, 841 S.W.2d 184 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Thus, as we view it, the precise issue before this court on appeal is whether the appellee officers and employees, and appel-lee city by virtue of the doctrine of respon-deat superior and KRS 65.2005, may be adjudged liable to appellants because the *188 negligence claims do not…”
Grayson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Casey, 157 S.W.3d 201 (Ky. 2005).
“180(2), KRS 65.2005 requires a county to pay any judgment rendered against a county employee because of the negligent performance of a ministerial act, subject to certain exceptions and limitations.”
Roach v. Hedges, 419 S.W.3d 46 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013).
“190 because they would be indemnified by the school district pursuant to KRS 65.2005. However, noth-tag in KRS 411.”
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Crystal Marlowe (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 13× “-6- Being ripe for review and not moot, we now turn to whether Metro can meet the statutory requirement of KRS 65.2005. 2. Metro’s CALGA claim fails because it cannot meet the statutory requirements for indemnification pursuant to KRS 65.”
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Mark Handy (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 10× “-6- In reviewing the record, the circuit court erred by applying an incorrect meaning to the plain language of KRS 65.2005 – applying KRS 65.2005 as if it allows for indemnification in all circumstances where a local government employee may be liable to a third party.”
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 4 v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't (Ky. 2025).
· cites it 2× “As determined by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an officer who was involved in an accident while operating a police squad car but was off-duty, not in uniform and not responding to a call was not entitled to indemnity nor a defense from his employer pursuant to the language of…”
James Barrow v. City of Hillview, Ky. (6th Cir. 2019).
“The district court seems to have judged Plaintiffs’ claim against only the first theory of liability— 6 Plaintiffs cited only Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005 for the proposition that Hillview is required “to defend employees such as Caple and Barrow to the extent they have acted in the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(1) — 7 cases
Richardson v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 260 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. 2008).
“KRS 65.2005 states that: (1) A local government shall provide for the defense of any employee by an attorney chosen by the local government in any action in tort arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his employment of which it has been given notice…”
Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
“2004, and KRS 65.2005 expressly or impliedly waive a county’s immunity from vicarious liability.”
Pearlie Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky., 25 F.4th 391 (6th Cir. 2022).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(1). The district court dismissed this claim with prejudice at the pleading stage, holding that the Kentucky statute does not permit a tort plaintiff to sue a county over the county’s statutory duty to indemnify its tortfeasor employees.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(3) — 6 cases
Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
“2004, and KRS 65.2005 expressly or impliedly waive a county’s immunity from vicarious liability.”
Richardson v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 260 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. 2008).
“KRS 65.2005 states that: (1) A local government shall provide for the defense of any employee by an attorney chosen by the local government in any action in tort arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his employment of which it has been given notice…”
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Crystal Marlowe (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“-6- Being ripe for review and not moot, we now turn to whether Metro can meet the statutory requirement of KRS 65.2005. 2. Metro’s CALGA claim fails because it cannot meet the statutory requirements for indemnification pursuant to KRS 65.”
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Mark Handy (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“-6- In reviewing the record, the circuit court erred by applying an incorrect meaning to the plain language of KRS 65.2005 – applying KRS 65.2005 as if it allows for indemnification in all circumstances where a local government employee may be liable to a third party.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(3)(a) — 4 cases
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Crystal Marlowe (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“-6- Being ripe for review and not moot, we now turn to whether Metro can meet the statutory requirement of KRS 65.2005. 2. Metro’s CALGA claim fails because it cannot meet the statutory requirements for indemnification pursuant to KRS 65.”
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Mark Handy (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“-6- In reviewing the record, the circuit court erred by applying an incorrect meaning to the plain language of KRS 65.2005 – applying KRS 65.2005 as if it allows for indemnification in all circumstances where a local government employee may be liable to a third party.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(3)(b) — 3 cases
louisville/jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Mark Handy (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“-6- In reviewing the record, the circuit court erred by applying an incorrect meaning to the plain language of KRS 65.2005 – applying KRS 65.2005 as if it allows for indemnification in all circumstances where a local government employee may be liable to a third party.”
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 4 v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't (Ky. 2025).
“As determined by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an officer who was involved in an accident while operating a police squad car but was off-duty, not in uniform and not responding to a call was not entitled to indemnity nor a defense from his employer pursuant to the language of…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 65.2005(l) — 1 case
Richardson v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 260 S.W.3d 777 (Ky. 2008).
“KRS 65.2005 states that: (1) A local government shall provide for the defense of any employee by an attorney chosen by the local government in any action in tort arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his employment of which it has been given notice…”
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.