 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Prowers6/20/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Vogt and Criswell, JJ., concur
Defendant, the Board of County Commissioners of Prowers County, appeals summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs, the Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool (Pool); the Board of County Commissioners of Cheyenne County, Kiowa County, and Baca County (collectively, plaintiff counties); and the District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District. We affirm.
The Pool is a casualty and property insurance pool consisting of several member counties, including the three plaintiff counties, but not Prowers County.
In 1998, a wrongful termination lawsuit was filed against the district attorney by one of his former employees.
The Pool requested that the Colorado State Claims Board of the Division of Risk Management assume the defense of the district attorney in that lawsuit pursuant to § 24-30-1510, C.R.S. 2001 (creating a "risk management fund" to pay liability claims brought against state officials). Alternatively, the Pool sought contribution from Prowers County. The State Claims Board and Prowers County both declined to participate. Consequently, the Pool and the district attorney's private insurer paid the defense costs and settlement of the action on behalf of the district attorney.
The Pool and the plaintiff counties subsequently brought this action for indemnification against the State Claims Board and for contribution against Prowers County for the costs expended in the underlying litigation.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the State Claims Board from the litigation, ruling that the district attorney is not covered by the risk management fund. The appealability of this ruling is presently pending on petition for certiorari before the Colorado Supreme Court.
The trial court also entered judgment against Prowers County for its pro rata contribution and indemnification for the defense and settlement expenses incurred in the underlying suit. Prowers County appeals this judgment here.
I.
Prowers County contends that because the costs for defending the district attorney in a lawsuit are not expenses contemplated by § 20-1-303, C.R.S. 2001, the trial court erred in ruling it was liable for those costs. We disagree.
As relevant here, § 20-1-303 provides that "the district attorney of each judicial district in the state of Colorado . . . shall be allowed to collect and receive from each of the counties in his district the expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of his official duties for the benefit of such county."
Prowers County argues that although no Colorado case has defined the "expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of his official duties for the benefit of such county," the case law indicates that not all costs associated with the district attorney's office are considered necessary for maintaining an office. Prowers County relies on cases such as Beacom v. Board of County Commissioners, 657 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1983), and Johns v. Miller, 42 Colo. App. 97, 594 P.2d 590 (1979). Prowers County also argues that because the underlying lawsuit alleged willful and wanton conduct, the expenses were not incurred in the discharge of the district attorney's official duties. In essence Prowers County thus argues that day-to-day functions of the district attorney are "necessary expenses" under that statute, but that the expenses associated with defending and indemnifying a lawsuit based on misconduct are not. We are not persuaded by this argument.
It is foreseeable that the district attorney would have employees and, consequently, that such empl
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|