AGO 1989-015.

• Case Date: February 13, 1989
• Court: Kansas

Kansas Attorney General Opinions 1989. AGO 1989-015. February 13, 1989ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 89-15Harold T. Walker City Attorney 9th Floor Municipal Office Building One Civic Center Plaza Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Re: State Departments; Public Officers and Employees--Kansas Tort Claims Act; Defense and Payment of Liability and Defense Costs of Employees in Civil Cases; Judgment; Punitive Damage Award, Payment Of Synopsis: Subsection (c) of K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 756116 generally provides a governmental entity may pay a part of any judgment taken against an employee for punitive or exemplary damages if the government entity finds three conditions exist. The statute requires that a judgment be rendered before the governmental entity may consider whether the conditions attendant to payment have been met. Cited herein: K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 75-6116. * * * Dear Mr. Walker: As City Attorney for Kansas City, Kansas, you request an opinion regarding subsection (c) of K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 75-6116 that generally provides a governmental entity may pay a part of any judgment taken against an employee for punitive or exemplary damages if the governmental entity finds three conditions exist. You inquire whether the governmental entity may determine whether the conditions are met prior to a judgment being rendered. Subsection (c) of the statute states:

"Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, a governmental entity may pay any part of a judgment taken against an employee of the governmental entity that is for punitive or exemplary damages for the violation of the civil rights laws of the United States if the governmental entity finds that:

"(1) The action or proceeding arose out of an act or omission in the scope of the employee's employment;

"(2) the employee reasonably cooperated in good faith in the defense of the claim; and

"(3) the employee's act or omission was not the result of actual fraud or actual malice." (Emphasis added.)

Our task is one of statutory construction. In construing a statute, the first step is to look to the language of the statute and ascribe to it the plain meaning of the terms. Young v. Sedgwick County, 660 F.Supp. 918 (D.Kan., 1987) citing Calutti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 99 S.Ct. 675, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979). Focusing on the underscored language above, the statute provides that a...