Case Title: W.A.R.M. v. Bonds

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93-33

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
W.A.R.M. v. Bonds1994 WY 1866 P.2d 1291Case Number: 93-33Decided: 01/07/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
W.A.R.M.; and David Dovala, Sheriff of Natrona County, 
Wyoming, in his official capacity, Appellants (Plaintiffs),

v.

Frank BONDS, as Risk Manager and Administrator of the 
Procurement Service Division of the Department of Administration and 
Information, Appellee (Defendant).

 

Judith A. Studer, argued of 
Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, Casper, for appellant.

John W. Renneisen, Deputy 
Atty. Gen. and Nicholas Vassallo, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued for appellee.

Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN and 
TAYLOR, JJ.

CARDINE, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Sheriff Dovala 
brought this action in the Natrona County District Court seeking declaratory 
judgment holding that the Wyoming State Self-Insurance Act, W.S. 1-41-101 to 111 
(1988 & Cum.Supp. 1993), covered the county sheriff being sued in his 
official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983). It comes to us as a certified 
question of law under W.R.A.P. 11.

[¶2]      We answer the 
certified question in the negative.

The certified question 
is:

Is a sheriff covered by the 
State Self-Insurance Act (§ 1-41-101, et seq.) for claims brought pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. § 1983 against a sheriff in his official capacity in a pending 
lawsuit?

FACTS

[¶3]      The parties 
stipulated to the following facts:

1. Thomas Lauck, David 
Rhodes, Kurlee Roberts, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly 
situated, sued the Board of County Commissioners of Natrona County, Wyoming, and 
David Dovala, Sheriff of Natrona County, in his individual and official 
capacities, and John Doe, U.S. Marshall, et al. The action [was] filed in the 
United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. * * 
*.

2. As part of the 
above-described action, Lauck, et al. assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
arising out of the care and treatment of inmates at the Natrona County Detention 
Center.

3. Sheriff David Dovala was 
elected as Sheriff of Natrona County in November of 1990 and took office in 
January of 1991. Pursuant to § 18-6-302 (W.S. 1977), the county sheriff shall 
keep the jail and be responsible for the manner in which it is kept. A sheriff 
duly elected in the state of Wyoming is a "peace officer" under the provisions 
of § 7-2-101 (W.S. 1977).

4. Sheriff David Dovala was 
served with a copy of a Summons and Complaint in Lauck, et 
al.

5. Eric Easton, County 
Attorney for Natrona County, forwarded a copy of the above-referenced suit to 
Monty Lauer, Risk Supervisor, Department of Administration and Information, 
Division of Procurement Services, pursuant to letter of October 9, 
1992.

6. Frank Bonds, as Risk 
Manager and Administrator of the Procurement Service Division of the Department 
of Administration and Information for the State of Wyoming, is charged by 
statute with providing legal services for the defense of claims covered by the 
State Self Insurance Act and to pay out of the self-insurance account those 
claims that have been settled or reduced to final judgment as provided in the 
State Self Insurance Act. Monty Lauer, Risk Supervisor, works directly under 
Frank Bonds and is charged with the administration of claims under the State 
Self Insurance Act.

7. Monty Lauer, Risk 
Supervisor, responded to the County Attorney pursuant to letter dated October 
12, 1992. His letter acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced suit. The 
letter stated: "Sheriff Dovala is named both in his `individual and official 
capacity.' The State will defend Sheriff Dovala only in his `individual 
capacity'."

8. Monty Lauer, as Risk 
Supervisor, retained the services of [a law firm] to represent David Dovala, 
Sheriff of Natrona County, in his individual capacity. [That firm] filed an 
Answer on behalf of the sheriff in his individual capacity dated October 22, 
1992.

9. The Wyoming Association 
of Risk Managers ("W.A.R.M.") hired [another law firm] to represent the 
interests of the Board of County Commissioners of Natrona County, Wyoming. An 
Answer was filed on the Commissioners' behalf dated October 26, 
1992.

10. Thereafter, W.A.R.M. 
retained the services of [a third law firm] to represent Sheriff David Dovala in 
his official capacity only.

11. The rights, duties, and 
obligations of Frank Bonds, as Risk Manager and Administrator of the Procurement 
Service Division of the Department of Administration and Information, and those 
under him, are set forth in § 1-41-101, et seq.

12. The rights, duties, and 
obligations of W.A.R.M. towards its participating public entities are set forth 
in the Wyoming Association of Risk Management Joint Powers Agreement and 
Memorandum of Liability Coverage. [record references 
omitted]

I. 
DISCUSSION

[¶4]      Although the 
parties have framed the certified question based on the assumption that Sheriff 
Dovala and similarly situated peace officers are covered by the Wyoming State 
Self-Insurance Act when sued under § 1983 in their individual capacity, 
discussions at oral argument and further review of the act have raised serious 
questions concerning the correctness of that assumption. Therefore, before 
analyzing the official capacity question, we first address whether the sheriff 
is covered by the act in his individual capacity.

A. Self-Insurance Act 
Coverage

[¶5]      The relevant 
portions of the Wyoming State Self-Insurance Act provide as 
follows:

(c) Expenditures shall be made out of the 
self-insurance account for the following claims which have been settled or 
reduced to final judgment:

* 
* * * * *

(iv) Claims 
against a peace officer employed by the University of Wyoming or a local government arising under 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983 or other federal statutes * * *:

* 
* * * * *

(B) The 
conditions and limitations of subsection (e) of this section apply to all claims 
under this paragraph.

* 
* * * * *

(e) The state 
shall defend claims against its public employees, or a state judicial 
officer exercising the authority vested in him, arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
or other federal statutes, subject to the following 
conditions:

(i) The state 
shall defend and, to the extent provided by paragraph (v) of this 
subsection, indemnify any of its public 
employees against any claim or demand, whether groundless or otherwise, 
arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the scope of 
duty;

* 
* * * * *

(v) Unless the act or omission upon which a claim is 
based is determined by the court or jury to be within the public employee's 
scope of duty, no public funds shall be expended in payment of the final 
judgment against the public employee[.]

Wyoming Statute 1-41-103 
(Cum.Supp. 1993) (emphasis added). The act defines "public employees" 
as

[v] any officer, employee or servant of the state, 
provided the term:

(A) Includes elected or appointed officials, peace officers and persons acting on behalf or in service of the state 
in any official capacity, whether with or without 
compensation;

(B) Does not 
include:

* 
* * * * *

(III) Any 
local government employees or officials including county and prosecuting 
attorneys.

Wyoming Statute 1-41-102 
(Cum.Supp. 1993) (emphasis added). The act incorporates the definition of "peace 
officer" found at W.S. 7-2-101 (Cum.Supp. 1993), which provides in 
part:

(iv) "Peace officer" means:

(A) 
Any duly authorized sheriff, under 
sheriff or deputy sheriff who has qualified pursuant to W.S. 9-1-701 through 
9-1-707[.]

In addition, the act 
provides:

(a) 
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, the risk manager 
shall:

* * * * * 
*

(iv) Provide 
legal services for the defense of claims covered by this act through the 
attorney general or through private attorneys approved by the attorney 
general[.]

Wyoming Statute 1-41-105 
(1988) (emphasis added).

[¶6]      When construing 
statutes, we first review the language of the statute to determine whether it is 
ambiguous. If we find it to be unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and do 
not consult the numerous rules of statutory construction. If, however, we find 
the statute ambiguous, that is "its meaning is uncertain, doubtful, or if a 
single term can fairly be said to mean different things," then we may resort to 
the rules of statutory construction. Moncrief v. Wyoming State Bd. of 
Equalization, 856 P.2d 440, 443 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Amoco Production Co. v. 
State, 751 P.2d 379, 381 (Wyo. 1988)).

[¶7]      We find that the 
Wyoming State Self-Insurance Act is ambiguous with respect to who and what is 
covered under the act; stated another way, the question presented is who are the 
insured. Unlike most private insurance policies where the terms of the policy 
specifically identify those individuals or entities insured by the policy, the 
State Self-Insurance Act fails to directly identify the insured parties. 
Subsections (a) and (b) of W.S. 1-41-103, designate how the self insurance fund 
is created and maintained. Subsection (c) is concerned with payment of claims 
"which have been settled or reduced to final judgment," including claims made 
"against a peace officer employed by * * * a local government arising under 42 
U.S.C. § 1983." Subsection (e) designates those claims which the State has a 
duty to defend and to indemnify.

[¶8]      The ambiguity 
arises because of inconsistencies between subsections (c) and (e). Subsection 
(e) requires that the State provide a defense to and indemnify claims brought 
against state "public employees." "Public employees" are defined as "peace 
officers * * * acting on behalf or in service of the state." "Public employee" 
does not include "any local government * * * official." Thus, the Natrona County 
Sheriff is not a public employee for whom the State must provide a 
defense.

[¶9]      If, however, a 
claim based on § 1983, brought against a local government "peace officer," is 
reduced to final judgment or has been settled, subsection (c) requires payment 
by the State out of the self-insurance account. The term peace officer means 
"any duly authorized sheriff." W.S. 7-2-101. The Natrona County Sheriff is a 
local government peace officer.

[¶10]   The statute, therefore, in one 
breath provides that a § 1983 judgment or agreed settlement against a local 
government "peace officer" be paid by the State out of the self-insurance fund; 
but, in the next breath, provides that there is no duty to defend or indemnify § 
1983 claims against "local government officials." Adding further confusion to 
the scenario, W.S. 1-41-105 requires the risk manager to "provide legal services 
for the defense of claims covered by" the act.

[¶11]   When construing an ambiguous 
statute, we seek to discover the intent of the legislature by applying rules of 
statutory construction. Story v. State, 755 P.2d 228, 231 (Wyo. 1988), cert. 
denied 498 U.S. 836, 111 S. Ct. 106, 112 L. Ed. 2d 76 (1990). In our search for 
legislative intent, we

look to the mischief the statute was intended to 
cure, the historical setting surrounding its enactment, the public policy of the 
state, the conclusions of law, and other prior and contemporaneous facts and 
circumstances, making use of the accepted rules of construction to ascertain a 
legislative intent that is reasonable and consistent.

State ex rel. Motor Vehicle 
Div. v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732, 736 (Wyo. 1983).

[¶12]   Although legislative history and 
legislative intent are rarely discoverable in Wyoming, the State Self-Insurance 
Act here does provide some insight:

The legislature recognizes that certain liability 
insurance policies of the state of Wyoming have been cancelled, that no 
responsive bids have been received and that there exists a need to develop a 
method to handle claims brought under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and 
arising under federal law. The 
legislature declares that the appropriate remedy is to create an account for 
self-insurance of the state and to provide for a loss prevention 
program.

W.S. 1-41-101 (1988) 
(emphasis added). That statement of intent suggests that the act was intended to 
provide coverage for the State, not local governments and their 
employees.

[¶13]   Legislative intent can also be 
gleaned from the preamble, included when the State Self-Insurance Act was 
enacted and published as a session law in 1986, which explained the act 
as:

creating the self-insurance account within the 
earmarked revenue fund to be administered for the payment of certain claims against the state and its public 
employees and peace officers brought under the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act or arising under federal law * * *.

1986 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 74 
(emphasis added). The language of this preamble suggests that the act was 
intended to insure those claims brought against the State, the state's public 
employees, and peace officers. There is no mention of local government 
employees. Whether the State Self-Insurance Act was intended to cover only 
"state peace officers" - e.g., highway patrolmen - or "all peace officers" - 
e.g., county sheriffs - is, however, unclear in the preamble because of the 
placement of the term "its." If the term "its" modifies both "public employees" 
and "peace officers," then the act covers only "state peace officers"; but if 
"its" modifies "public employees" only, then the act likely was intended to 
cover "all peace officers."

[¶14]   Additional insight into the 
legislature's intent when enacting the State Self-Insurance Act appears in other 
legislation passed at the same time and in conjunction with the State 
Self-Insurance Act. The 1986 Legislature, in addition to enacting the "State 
Self-Insurance Act," also passed the "Local Government Insurance Program." 1986 
Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 81 and W.S. 1-42-101 through 1-42-112. Just as the 
legislature had declared that the "State Self-Insurance Act" was intended to 
cover the state, they similarly declared that the "Local Government Insurance 
Program" was intended to insure local governments. See W.S. 1-42-101 (1988). 
However, "peace officers" were and are specifically excluded from coverage under 
the "Local Government Insurance Program." See W.S. 1-42-103(c)(i) & (e)(i) 
(Cum.Supp. 1993) and 1986 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 81 § 1. The fact that "peace 
officers" were specifically excluded from the "Local Government Insurance 
Program" and were specifically mentioned in the ambiguous coverage sections of 
the "State Self-Insurance Act" demonstrates that the legislature intended the 
"State Self-Insurance Act" to cover "all peace officers." See W.S. 
1-41-103(c)(iv) (Cum.Supp. 1993) and 1986 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 74 § 
1.

[¶15]   Additional support for this 
construction can be found in W.S. 9-2-1017 (1989) which was amended when the 
"State Self-Insurance Act" was enacted in 1986. Wyoming Statute 9-2-1017 was 
amended to provide:

(a) The state of Wyoming through the department shall 
purchase a comprehensive professional liability policy providing coverage for all peace officers 
if:

(i) Coverage is available at a reasonable cost; 
and

(ii) It is economically more feasible to provide 
coverage through the purchase of insurance than through self-insurance as provided by W.S. 1-41-101 
through 1-41-111.

See 1986 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 
74 § 2. The language of that statute evidences an intent that W.S. 1-41-101 
through 1-41-111, the "State Self Insurance Act," covered all peace officers, 
not just "state peace officers."

[¶16]   Resolving the ambiguity under the 
act, the legislative history suggests that the State Self-Insurance Act was 
intended to cover § 1983 actions brought against all peace officers in their 
individual capacity, as defined at W.S. 7-2-101, including county sheriffs. 
Having determined the basic coverage question, we now turn to the certified 
question of coverage for official capacity suits.

B. Official Capacity 
Actions

[¶17]   Appellant Sheriff Dovala argues 
that the plain language of the State Self-Insurance Act does not distinguish 
between official capacity and individual capacity § 1983 actions and, therefore, 
the act covers him whether the action is brought against him in his individual 
or in his official capacity. Appellee, the risk manager of the State 
Self-Insurance Act (risk manager), asserts that a § 1983 action against a 
governmental agent in his or her official capacity is no different than suing 
the governmental entity whom the governmental agent represents and since local 
governments, like Natrona County, are not covered by the State Self-Insurance 
Act, then the act does not cover the sheriff of Natrona County when sued in his 
official capacity.

[¶18]   The United States Supreme Court, in 
Kentucky v. Graham, explained that a § 1983 action against a governmental 
officer in his or her "official capacity" is to be treated as a suit against the 
government agency, who is the real party in interest. 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 3105, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1985). That court reaffirmed the holding in 
Graham when it said, "the real party in interest in an official-capacity suit is 
the governmental entity and not the named official * * *." Hafer v. Melo, ___ 
U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 358, 361, 116 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1991). Therefore, based on the 
United States Supreme Court's construction of the federal legislation 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983, the suit against Sheriff Dovala in his "official capacity" should be 
treated as a suit against the governmental entity for which he is an 
agent.

[¶19]   Sheriff Dovala counters this 
conclusion by asserting that the plain language of the State Self-Insurance Act 
does not exclude coverage of "official capacity" claims and that federal case 
law should not control the interpretation of a state statute. The section of the 
act which grants coverage of peace officers sued under § 1983, 1-41-103(c)(iv), 
states:

Expenditures shall be made out of the self-insurance 
account for the following claims which have been settled or reduced to final 
judgment:

* 
* * * * *

(iv) Claims against a peace officer employed by * * * 
a local government arising under 42 
U.S.C. § 1983 * * *[.]

We agree that federal case 
law has no binding effect on the construction of a Wyoming statute. We are, 
however, bound by federal case law in determining what types of claims may 
"arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." As was previously noted, a claim which is 
brought against a peace officer in his or her "official capacity" is actually 
against a governmental entity not a "claim against a peace officer." Graham, 473 U.S.  at 165, 105 S. Ct.  at 3105, Hafer, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct.  at 361. 
Therefore, the only claim against a peace officer which can "arise under 42 
U.S.C. § 1983" is a suit against the peace officer in his or her "individual or 
personal capacity." Since a § 1983 suit against a peace officer in his or her 
"official capacity" is a claim against his or her county, not a claim against 
the peace officer, it is not covered by the State Self-Insurance 
Act.

[¶20]   It is undisputed that the "State 
Self-Insurance Act" does not provide coverage to local governments, including 
county governments. Natrona County is the entity which Sheriff Dovala 
represents. Sheriff Dovala is a county sheriff, and a county sheriff is a 
"county officer." W.S. 18-3-102 (Cum.Supp. 1993). A "county officer" has his or 
her office in the county and is paid by the county. W.S. 18-3-103 and -107 
(Cum.Supp. 1993). The county sheriff manages the county jail for the county 
commissioners, but the county commissioners control the construction, necessary 
repairs and the settling of expenses for the jail. W.S. 18-6-201, 18-6-302, 
18-6-303 (1977 & Cum.Supp. 1993). Therefore, a § 1983 action against Sheriff 
Dovala in his "official capacity" is really a § 1983 action against Natrona 
County, which is not covered by the State Self-Insurance 
Act.

CONCLUSION

[¶21]   A § 1983 claim against a county 
sheriff in his or her official capacity is not covered by the State 
Self-Insurance Act because a § 1983 official capacity action against a sheriff 
is really a § 1983 claim against the county and therefore is not a claim 
"against a peace officer employed by * * * a local government arising under 42 
U.S.C. § 1983," as is required by the act.

[¶22]   The answer to the certified 
question is, no.