(a) The state reserves the right to determine whether or not it will indemnify any employees
defended pursuant to §§ 9-31-8 — 9-31-11, if a judgment is rendered against the employee.
(b) Upon certification by the court in which the tort action against a state employee
is pending that (1) the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his or her
office or employment when the claim arose, and (2) the claim does not arise out of
actual fraud, willful misconduct, or actual malice by the employee, any civil action
or proceeding commenced upon the claim under this statute shall be deemed to be an
action or proceeding brought against the state under the provisions of this title
and all references thereto, and the state shall be substituted as the party defendant.
(c) Nothing in this section shall affect the obligations of any insurer, including the
obligation to defend and satisfy any settlement or award.
Notes of Decisions
Mottola v. Cirello, 789 A.2d 421 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 10× “—(a) The state reserves the right to determine whether or not it will indemnify any employees defended pursuant to §§ 9-31-8 — 9-31-11, if a judgment is rendered against the employee.”
Hargreaves v. Jack, 750 A.2d 430 (R.I. 2000).
· cites it 4× “We also express no opinionconcerning whether the city would be entitled to the limitations on damages as provided in the State Tort Claims Act, G.L.1956 § 9-31-12. In light of the foregoing analysis, we do not need to reach the merits of plaintiff's constitutional challenges.”
State v. Med. Malpractice Jt. Underwriting Ass'n, 941 A.2d 219 (R.I. 2008).
“45, § 1, in order to provide increased liability protection for state employees, for tort claims based on conduct that occurred within the scope of their employment, by (1) removing the $50,000 indemnification cap for damages; and (2) providing for substitution of the state as a…”
State v. JUA, 941 A.2d 219 (R.I. 2008).
· cites it 5× “45, § 1, in order to provide increased liability protection for state employees, for tort claims based on conduct that occurred within the scope of their employment, by (1) removing the $50,000 indemnification cap for damages; and (2) providing for substitution of the state as a…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-12(a) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-12(b) — 3 cases
Mottola v. Cirello, 789 A.2d 421 (R.I. 2002).
“—(a) The state reserves the right to determine whether or not it will indemnify any employees defended pursuant to §§ 9-31-8 — 9-31-11, if a judgment is rendered against the employee.”
State v. JUA, 941 A.2d 219 (R.I. 2008).
“45, § 1, in order to provide increased liability protection for state employees, for tort claims based on conduct that occurred within the scope of their employment, by (1) removing the $50,000 indemnification cap for damages; and (2) providing for substitution of the state as a…”
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.