ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District has ruled against the city of St. Louis in its attempt to secure reimbursement from the state’s legal expense fund (SLEF) for a $250,000 settlement payment.
The ruling reverses the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the city, finding that state law precludes reimbursement for claims filed after the Sept. 1, 2013 transfer of control over the St. Louis Police Department to local authorities.
The dispute arose from a wrongful death lawsuit initially filed in 2012 by the daughter of A.S., an individual who was fatally shot by a St. Louis police officer in 2011, according to the March 25 court opinion.
The case was settled in 2013. However, in December 2017, the daughter sought to re-open discovery and impose sanctions, alleging that the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners failed to disclose key DNA evidence before the original settlement.
This evidence reportedly indicated that the officer’s DNA was found on the weapon discovered in A.S.’s vehicle.
In 2019, the daughter reached a new settlement agreement with the board, the attorney general, and the city, receiving $250,000 in compensation.
The city subsequently sought reimbursement from SLEF, citing Missouri statutes that provide for state reimbursement of certain claims. The trial court ruled in favor of the city, granting summary judgment and ordering reimbursement.
On appeal, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office contended that the city was not entitled to reimbursement under state law. The appellate court agreed, holding that Section 84.345.2 of the Missouri Revised Statutes bars reimbursement for claims filed after local control of the St. Louis Police Department was transferred on Sept. 1, 2013.
The city argued that the claim stemmed from events that occurred before the transfer and was therefore eligible for reimbursement.
However, the appellate court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the legally significant date for reimbursement purposes is the filing date of the claim, not the date of the underlying events.
The court relied on its previous ruling in City of St. Louis v. State and the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Holmes v. Steelman, both of which determined that SLEF reimbursement hinges on when a claim is filed, rather than when the alleged misconduct occurred.
Since the daughter’s claim for sanctions was filed in December 2017—more than four years after the transition to local control—the court concluded that the city was not eligible for state reimbursement.
Additionally, the city raised an alternative argument on appeal, asserting that the relevant date for reimbursement should be the 2012 filing of the original wrongful death lawsuit.
However, the appellate court dismissed this argument, noting that the 2017 claim was distinct from the earlier case and specifically sought relief for discovery violations.
The court ruled that the trial court had improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the city, as the 2017 claim was clearly filed beyond the statutory deadline for SLEF coverage.
With this ruling, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for judgment in favor of the state.
The appellant is represented by Michael E. C. Pritchett.
The respondent is represented by Andrew D. Wheaton, Erin K. McGowan, Benjamin N. Levin and Charles W. Hatfield.
Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District case number: ED112792