Source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/30.285
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 19:13:45
Document Index: 798064893

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§7', '§16', '§5', '§2', '§22', '§1', '§11']

ORS 30.285 - Public body shall indemnify public officers - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes
2015 ORS § 30.285¹
Public body shall indemnify public officers
• procedure for requesting counsel
• extent of duty of state
• obligation for judgment and attorney fees
(1) The governing body of any public body shall defend, save harmless and indemnify any of its officers, employees and agents, whether elective or appointive, against any tort claim or demand, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section do not apply in case of malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty.
(3) If any civil action, suit or proceeding is brought against any state officer, employee or agent which on its face falls within the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, or which the state officer, employee or agent asserts to be based in fact upon an alleged act or omission in the performance of duty, the state officer, employee or agent may, after consulting with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services file a written request for counsel with the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall thereupon appear and defend the officer, employee or agent unless after investigation the Attorney General finds that the claim or demand does not arise out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of amounted to malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, in which case the Attorney General shall reject defense of the claim.
(4) Any officer, employee or agent of the state against whom a claim within the scope of this section is made shall cooperate fully with the Attorney General and the department in the defense of such claim. If the Attorney General after consulting with the department determines that such officer, employee or agent has not so cooperated or has otherwise acted to prejudice defense of the claim, the Attorney General may at any time reject the defense of the claim.
(5) If the Attorney General rejects defense of a claim under subsection (3) of this section or this subsection, no public funds shall be paid in settlement of said claim or in payment of any judgment against such officer, employee or agent. Such action by the Attorney General shall not prejudice the right of the officer, employee or agent to assert and establish an appropriate proceedings that the claim or demand in fact arose out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of did not amount to malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, in which case the officer, employee or agent shall be indemnified against liability and reasonable costs of defending the claim, cost of such indemnification to be a charge against the Insurance Fund established by ORS 278.425 (Insurance Fund).
(6) Nothing in subsection (3), (4) or (5) of this section shall be deemed to increase the limits of liability of any public officer, agent or employee under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive), or obviate the necessity of compliance with ORS 30.275 (Notice of claim) by any claimant, nor to affect the liability of the state itself or of any other public officer, agent or employee on any claim arising out of the same accident or occurrence.
(7) As used in this section, state officer, employee or agent includes district attorneys and deputy district attorneys, special prosecutors and law clerks of the office of district attorney who act in a prosecutorial capacity, but does not include any other employee of the office of district attorney or any employee of the justice or circuit courts whose salary is paid wholly or in part by the county. [1967 c.627 §7; 1975 c.609 §16; 1981 c.109 §5; 1981 c.913 §2; 1985 c.731 §22; 1987 c.763 §1; 2009 c.67 §11]
Because of statutory mandate that school district indemnify employes against tort claims arising from acts performed during execu­tion of employes job duties, school districts insurer is not entitled to appor­tioned contribu­tion from teachers per­sonal insurer for tort claims arising out of teachers acts performed during execu­tion of job responsibilities. United Pacific/Reliance Ins. v. Horace Mann Ins., 65 Or App 21, 670 P2d 172 (1983)
Where plaintiff, per­sonal auto insurer of school administrator, also insured districts vicarious liability for administrator, plaintiff could not, under this sec­tion, recover indemnity from district for administrators on-job auto accident. Calif. Cas. Ins. v. David Douglas School Distr., 71 Or App 549, 693 P2d 54 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Where plaintiff volunteered at request of Workers Compensa­tion Depart­ment to es­tab­lish and chair peer review committee to review at request of depart­ment particular chiropractor billings to compensa­tion insurance carriers, control exercised over committee was sufficient to es­tab­lish agency rela­tionship. Samuel v. Frohnmayer, 82 Or App 375, 728 P2d 97 (1986), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 84 Or App 80 (1987)
Where plaintiff insurer, which insured van that was loaned to defendant University of Oregon, sought declara­tion that states duty to indemnity its employes against tort claims under this sec­tion rendered state primarily liable and absolved plaintiff insurer of its contractual duty to defend and indemnify defendants against liability claims of third per­sons arising out of automobile accident, trial court properly granted defendants mo­tion for summary judg­ment. Fircrest Poultry Farms Co. v. State of Oregon, 82 Or App 695, 728 P2d 968 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
Where former assistant director of Puerto Ricos Commercial Develop­ment Company brought 1983 ac­tion against company and other defendants for allegedly dismissing him in viola­tion of First and Fourteenth Amend­ment rights, former executive director entitled to qualified immunity and any back pay awarded to plaintiff reduced by interim earnings. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Aquino, 863 F2d 1037 (1st Cir. 1988)
Where public employer con­ducted no investiga­tion other than complaint against employee before declining his tendered de­fense, employer failed to satisfy investiga­tion require­ment of ORS 30.287 (Counsel for public officer) and was therefore re­quired to indemnify employee. Cunliffe v. Pomplin, 102 Or App 403, 794 P2d 816 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where expense of defending of­fi­cer, employee or agent of public body is incurred by third party, third party may not claim right to indemnifica­tion. Gill v. SAIF, 110 Or App 533, 823 P2d 447 (1992), affd as modified 314 Or 719, 842 P2d 402 (1992)
Allega­tion of ethics viola­tion does not constitute tort claim or demand. City of Tualatin v. City-County Insurance Services Trust, 129 Or App 198, 878 P2d 1139 (1994), affd 321 Or 164, 894 P2d 1158 (1995)
Duty of public employer to indemnify and defend employee against suits arising in performance of employees duty does not impose duty on plaintiff to give employer notice when suing employee in private capacity. Krieger v. Just, 319 Or 328, 876 P2d 754 (1994)
Court must make separate inquiry to determine whether to substitute state as sole defendant rather than relying on Attorney Generals determina­tion. Berry v. Dept. of General Services, 141 Or App 225, 917 P2d 1070 (1996)
Prohibi­tion against public expenditure for de­fense of malfeasance or willful or wanton neglect does not apply to de­fense of claims other than tort claims. Eugene Police Employees Associa­tion v. City of Eugene, 157 Or App 341, 972 P2d 1191 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Where insurance policy applies to of­fi­cer, employee or agent but not to public body, policy releases public body only from obliga­tion under ORS 30.287 (Counsel for public officer) to appoint counsel, not from duty to defend, save harmless and indemnify. Genesis Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Deschutes County, 194 Or App 446, 95 P3d 748 (2004)
278.120 Claims manage­ment
401.364 Coverage under Oregon Tort Claims Act
402.240 Indemnifica­tion of employee providing assistance
404.210 Coverage under Oregon Tort Claims Act