ST. LOUIS — An appellate court reversed a summary judgment ruling involving Missouri, its attorney general and St. Louis and the State Legal Expense Fund.
Missouri and Attorney General Andrew Bailey appealed a decision by the trial court, which had granted summary judgment in favor of St. Louis, according to the Sept. 3 ruling in the Missouri Court of Appeals in the Eastern District.
The city sought reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF) for a $641,546.94 payment related to a civil rights lawsuit filed by K.R., who was arrested by a St. Louis police officer in 2012.
Although K.R. filed the lawsuit in 2016, the city claimed it was entitled to reimbursement under SLEF, which covers legal expenses and judgments against state employees and agencies, the judges ruled.
SLEF was established in 1983 to cover such claims. However, a 2005 Missouri Supreme Court decision extended SLEF coverage to include St. Louis police officers.
In response, the legislature amended the law to limit SLEF’s liability for police commissioners and officers, especially after the city regained control of its police force in 2013, following the passage of Proposition A, the judges ruled.
According to these amendments, SLEF liability for St. Louis police officers terminated after Sept. 1, 2013, which is key to the current dispute.
The incident involving K.R. occurred in 2012, before the transfer of police control, but the lawsuit was filed in 2016, after the cut-off date for SLEF liability.
The trial court ruled in favor of the city, stating that SLEF should cover the costs. However, the state argued that the relevant statutes only provide SLEF coverage for claims made before the transfer of power to the city in 2013.
On appeal, the court ruled that the language of the statutes clearly indicates that SLEF liability is determined by when the lawsuit is filed, not when the underlying conduct occurred.
Since K.R.’s lawsuit was filed after the transfer of police control, SLEF was not obligated to reimburse the city.
"Here, the event establishing SLEF compensation was the filing of the suit against Officer in November 2016," Presiding Judge Lisa P. Page wrote. "This was well after the September 1, 2013 completion of transfer to local control and Section 84.345 does not require reimbursement in this case."
Page wrote that pursuant to Holmes, and the plain language of Sections 84.345, 105.726, and 105.711, SLEF was not obligated to reimburse the city for its payment of $641,546.94 to discharge the judgment against the officer and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the city.
"The judgment of the motion court is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the state," Page wrote.
As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, siding with Missouri and Bailey.
The appellant is represented by Michael E. C. Pritchett.
The respondent is represented by Erin E. McGowan.
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment on the matter.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112349