Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 85
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8546 (2026)

 Defense of official immunity.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 8546.  Defense of official immunity.

In any action brought against an employee of a local agency for damages on account of an injury to a person or property based upon claims arising from, or reasonably related to, the office or the performance of the duties of the employee, the employee may assert on his own behalf, or the local agency may assert on his behalf:

(1)  Defenses which are available at common law to the employee.

(2)  The defense that the conduct of the employee which gave rise to the claim was authorized or required by law, or that he in good faith reasonably believed the conduct was authorized or required by law.

(3)  The defense that the act of the employee which gave rise to the claim was within the policymaking discretion granted to the employee by law. For purposes of this subsection, all acts of members of the governing body of a local agency or of the chief executive officer thereof are deemed to be within the policymaking discretion granted to such person by law.

 

Cross References.  Section 8546 is referred to in sections 8542, 8550 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Will El v. City of Pittsburgh, 975 F.3d 327 (3rd Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Will El v. City of Pittsburgh, 975 F.3d 327 (3rd Cir. 2020). “They invoked neither Pennsylvania official immunity under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8546 nor qualified immunity.”
Malia Et Ux. v. Monchak, 543 A.2d 184 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988). · cites it 4× “42 Pa. C. S. §8546, entitled “defense of official immunity,” provides a local agency employee with the following three additional defenses, if the claim against the employee arises from or is reasonably related to his office or his duties: (1) Defenses which are available at…”
Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 552 A.2d 1382 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8546. [30] See footnote 2 supra at 1383.”
Pocono Mountain Charter Sch. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 442 F. App'x 681 (3rd Cir. 2011). “It is not entirely clear from the complaint whether the District’s allegedly defamatory statements were made in the School’s official capacity or in school officials’ personal capacities.”
Kuzel v. Krause, 658 A.2d 856 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “For local officials, immunity was codified at Section 8546 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8546, dealing with official immunity.”
Swartz v. Masloff, 437 A.2d 472 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “Particularly relevant to the inquiry under consideration here are Sections 8546 and 8550 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §§8546 and 8550. Section 8546 provides in pertinent part as follows: In any action brought against an employee of a local agency for damages on account of…”
DeBellis v. Kulp, 166 F. Supp. 2d 255 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8546(2). However, if the court determines that the employee’s act constituted “a crime, *279 actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct,” the employee’s ability to claim both the Act’s overall restriction on liability and the defense of official…”
Rieger Ex Rel. Rieger v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 768 A.2d 912 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Section 8546 of the Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8546, does avail common law defenses such as assumption of the risk to employees of local ■agencies.”
Edmondson v. Zetusky, 674 A.2d 760 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “The issues presented for review are whether Edmondson has stated valid claims against the Mayor for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, and whether the Mayor’s actions constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct so as to preclude…”
Dixon v. Cameron Cnty. Sch. Dist., 802 A.2d 696 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “, keeping him advised with respect thereto, and the employee shall cooperate fully with the defense, except that in situations where the legal counsel provided by the local agency determines that the interests of the employee and the local agency conflict, the local agency shall…”
Dorsey v. Redman, 22 A.3d 274 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “) The trial court additionally concluded that the defense of official immunity under Section 8546 of the Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8546, was applicable because “the Register’s actions of February 1, 2006 in granting the Letters of Administration to Keefer were reasonably…”
Grimm v. Borough of Norristown, 226 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Pa. 2002). “” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8546(2). However, if the court determines that the employee’s act constituted “a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct,” the employee’s ability to claim both the Act’s overall restriction on liability and the defense of official immunity…”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8546(1) — 3 cases
Weinstein v. Bullick, 827 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
Dorsey v. Redman, 22 A.3d 274 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). “) The trial court additionally concluded that the defense of official immunity under Section 8546 of the Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8546, was applicable because “the Register’s actions of February 1, 2006 in granting the Letters of Administration to Keefer were reasonably…”
Winig, J., Aplt. v. Off. of DA of Phila. (Pa. 2025).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8546(2) — 8 cases
DeBellis v. Kulp, 166 F. Supp. 2d 255 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8546(2). However, if the court determines that the employee’s act constituted “a crime, *279 actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct,” the employee’s ability to claim both the Act’s overall restriction on liability and the defense of official…”
Grimm v. Borough of Norristown, 226 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Pa. 2002). “” 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8546(2). However, if the court determines that the employee’s act constituted “a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct,” the employee’s ability to claim both the Act’s overall restriction on liability and the defense of official immunity…”
Malia Et Ux. v. Monchak, 543 A.2d 184 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988). “42 Pa. C. S. §8546, entitled “defense of official immunity,” provides a local agency employee with the following three additional defenses, if the claim against the employee arises from or is reasonably related to his office or his duties: (1) Defenses which are available at…”
Brown v. Smythe, 780 F. Supp. 274 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Cassidy v. Abington Twp., 571 A.2d 543 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8546(3) — 5 cases
Swartz v. Masloff, 437 A.2d 472 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1981). “Particularly relevant to the inquiry under consideration here are Sections 8546 and 8550 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §§8546 and 8550. Section 8546 provides in pertinent part as follows: In any action brought against an employee of a local agency for damages on account of…”
Thorpe v. DANBY, 448 A.2d 676 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1982).
Malia Et Ux. v. Monchak, 543 A.2d 184 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988). “42 Pa. C. S. §8546, entitled “defense of official immunity,” provides a local agency employee with the following three additional defenses, if the claim against the employee arises from or is reasonably related to his office or his duties: (1) Defenses which are available at…”
Calvert v. New Freedom Borough, 21 Pa. D. & C.4th 303 (1993).
Vassia v. Dule, 35 Pa. D. & C.3d 335 (1985).
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.