Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04066/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

FILED 

lklited Statfl Court of .Appeals 

Tenrh Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL l ij 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROBERT H. COPIER, } 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

UTAH MUNIC I PAL RISK MANAGEMENT, } 

ASSOCI ATION, also known as Utah Risk ) 

Management Association, an ) 

unincorporated association of political ) 

su bdivisions of the State of Utah; ) 

SANDY CITY, a Utah municipality; and ) 

JOHN DOES 1-5, officers, agents, ) 

a nd employees of Utah Municipal Risk ) 

Management Association and Sandy City, ) 

acting under color of office and ) 

au t hor i ty, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-4066 

(D.C. No. 88-C-0529S) 

( D. Utah) 

Before MOORE, BRIGHT,** and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

**Hono rable Myron H. Bright, Circuit Judge, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Defendant-appellee Sandy City (City), a Utah municipality, 

termi nated plaintiff-appellant Robert H. Copier as its City 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the c ase, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 89-4066 Document: 010110038371 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 1 
At t orney in April 1986. Copier subsequently sued the City in 

sta t e court for improper termination and other alleged wrongs. 

Th e City counterclaimed, alleging that Copier improperly applied 

for and received certain fees, expenses and benefits during his 

term as City Attorney and as interim City Administrative Officer. 

Copi er requested that the City pay for his defense against the 

City 's counterclaims and indemnify him for any judgment or 

settlement on those counterclaims. After the City refused, Copier 

brough t the present action in federal district court, alleging, 

among other things, that the City's refusal to defend him in that 

action deprived him of a constitutionally protected property right 

without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(1982 ). The d i strict court granted summary judgment to the City 

and other de f endants1 on Copier's section 1983 claim and dismissed 

Copier 's remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. 

Ruling and Order at 4 (April 14, 1989). Copier timely appealed. 

After conducting a de novo review of the district court's 

decision, see Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 

862 F .2d 796, 798 (10th Cir. 1988)(standard of review for grant of 

summary judgment is de novo), we affirm. 

The ba sis of Copier's section 1983 claim is City 

Ordinance #85-53, wh i ch provides in pertinent part: 

1 The other defendants-appellees in this action are the Utah 

Muni c i pal Risk Management Association (UMRMA), a municipal 

self-insurance group of which Sandy City is a member, and five 

John Does described by Copier as officers, agents and employees of 

UMRMA and Sandy City. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-4066 Document: 010110038371 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 2 
Section 2. (a) Pursuant to U.C.A. 63-30-28, Sandy City 

is self-insured against any risk created or recognized 

by Title 63, Chapter 30, U.C.A., or any action for which 

a governmental entity or its employees or officials may 

be liable. 

(c) The above provision insures employees and 

o fficials against liability in whole or in part for 

i njury or damage resulting from an act or omission 

o ccurring during the performance of duties within the 

s cope of employment, or under color of authority 

regardless of whether or not the City is immune from 

suit for said act or omission pursuant to Section 

63-30-33, U.C.A. 

(d) Pursuant to Section 63-30-28, the City hereby 

c onsents to defend its employees and officials and 

i ndemnify and to pay any judgment, compromise or 

s ettlement in any action or claim alleging an act or 

omission as set forth in paragraph (c) above, .... 

(e) The City, for and in 

rendered, hereby creates a 

p roperty right for each of its 

employees and officials to 

herein. 

consideration of services 

contractual right and a 

past, present and future 

the coverage identified 

The district court held that section 2(d) of the ordinance 

does not, as Copier claims, obligate the City to defend and/or 

indemnify him in an action brought by the City against him. 

Accor dingly, the district court held as a matter of law that the 

ordinance does not create a federally protected property interest 

to a City-funded defense against the City's counterclaim. 

We agree with this analysis and conclusion. Under the common 

law , a principal's obligation to reimburse an agent for expenses 

incurred in defending actions arising out of the agency only 

app l ies to actions brought by third parties. See Cory Bros. & Co. 

v . United States, 51 F.2d 1010, 1013 (2d Cir. 1931); Wyoming Bank 

& Tr u st Co . v. Waugh, 606 P.2d 725, 731 (Wyo. 1980). Thus, an 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-4066 Document: 010110038371 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 3 
I 

agent is not entitled under the common law to indemnification for 

costs incurred in defending a suit brought by the principal for 

misperformance of the agency. See id. These common law rules 

must be considered in interpreting Ordinance 

Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 779, 

N. Singer, Sutherland Stat. Constr. § 50.01 (4th 

also Canfield v. Sullivan, 774 F.2d 1466, 

#85-53, see 

7 8 3 ( 19 5 2 ) ; 2A 

ed. 1984); see 

1467 ( 9th Cir. 

1985)(general rules of statutory construction govern 

interpr etation of municipal ordinances), and, absent evidence of 

contrary legislative intent, the ordinance must be interpreted 

consistent with this law. See Isbrandtsen, 343 U.S. at 783; 

United States v. Monasterski, 567 F.2d 677, 682 (6th Cir. 1977). 

There is no indication in the record before us that the City 

Council of Sandy City intended to abandon this general rule when 

it enacted Ordinance #85-53. To the contrary, the ordinance's 

provision that it insures City employees and officials "regardless 

of whether or not the City is immune from suit for said action or 

omission," id., § 2(c), implies that the defense and 

indemnification obligations created by the ordinance are directed 

at suits brought against these employees and officials by third 

parties, and not at suits brought against them by the City itself. 

Accordingly, we hold that Ordinance #85-53 does not obligate the 

City to defend and indemnify its former employees in actions 

brought by the City against such employees and hence that it does 

not grant Copier a federally protected property interest to 

defense and indemnification in the City's counterclaim against 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-4066 Document: 010110038371 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 4 
f 

' 

him. The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is therefore AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-4066 Document: 010110038371 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 5