Coleman v. Frierson - 618 F. Supp. 1280 (N.D. Ill. 1985)

Rule:

The issue of indemnification is not a function of the court's views of fairness or of the exercise of its discretion as an equity chancellor. Instead it is purely a matter of state law. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, para. 9-102 speaks in mandatory terms. A local public entity is empowered and directed to pay any tort judgment or settlement for which it or an employee while acting in the scope of his employment is liable in the manner provided in that Article.

Facts:

The employee, Samuel Coleman, filed a § 1983 action against the city, the mayor, and the police chief to challenge the employee's termination as a special investigator for the city, and his subsequent arrest on charges of impersonating a police officer. A default judgment was entered in the employee's favor as to liability, and a jury returned verdicts for compensatory and punitive damages against all three defendants. The employee, the mayor, and the police chief filed a joint motion to require the city to indemnify the mayor and the police chief pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, para. 9-102.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the mayor and the police chief be indemnified pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, para. 9-102? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court denied the motion for indemnification. The court noted that under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, para. 9-102, a local public entity was empowered and directed to pay any tort judgment or settlement for which it or an employee while acting in the scope of his employment was liable in the manner provided in that Article. In this case, however, the court found that the mayor and the police chief were not acting in their official capacities when the employee was terminated and arrested; thus, they were not entitled to indemnification under para. 9-102.