O'Brien v. City of New Haven, 175 A.3d 589

Background

William O’Brien, former New Haven tax assessor, was sued in 2010 by Tax Data Solutions alleging misconduct arising from his official duties; the city refused to defend him.
O’Brien retained private counsel, prevailed in the underlying suit (judgment in his favor on Jan. 15, 2015), and sought indemnification from the City under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-101a for attorney’s fees and costs.
O’Brien filed notice of intent to sue the city under § 7-101a(d) on April 24, 2015, and commenced the indemnification action on May 26, 2015.
The city moved to dismiss, arguing the six-month notice and two-year filing periods in § 7-101a(d) began when the third-party (Tax Data) sued O’Brien in 2010, rendering O’Brien’s 2015 notice/action untimely.
Trial court denied the motion, awarded O’Brien fees and costs for defending the underlying action, but denied fees for prosecuting the indemnification suit. Both parties appealed; appeals were consolidated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does a § 7-101a(b) indemnification cause of action accrue for the § 7-101a(d) notice and limitation periods?	O’Brien: accrual occurs when he first can successfully hold the municipality liable — i.e., after he wins the underlying action.	City: accrual occurs when the third-party tort cause of action against the employee arises (2010), so notice/time limits ran then.	Court: accrual is when employee can first maintain § 7-101a(b) claim — after favorable resolution of the underlying action; O’Brien’s 2015 notice/action were timely.
Does § 7-101a impose a duty to defend on the municipality?	O’Brien: not central to his claim; he relied on indemnification after judgment in his favor.	City: argues notice must be earlier so municipality/insurer can investigate/defend.	Court: § 7-101a imposes an obligation to indemnify (protect and save harmless), not a duty to defend; statute’s text governs notice timing.
Can an employee recover attorney’s fees incurred prosecuting a § 7-101a indemnification suit against the municipality?	O’Brien: “financial loss” language authorizes reimbursement for fees incurred prosecuting the indemnification action.	City: § 7-101a only covers fees arising from claims instituted against the employee, not fees for affirmatively suing the municipality.	Court: Fees to prosecute the indemnification action are not recoverable under § 7-101a; award limited to fees defending the underlying third-party suit.
Would interpreting “cause of action” to mean the third-party suit lead to absurd/bizarre results?	O’Brien: yes — would allow six-month notice to expire before employee is even sued.	City: claims practical need for municipality/insurer notice supports its reading.	Court: Adopts interpretation avoiding irrational results; statutory text controls and does not require extra-textual notice.

Key Cases Cited

Coelho v. ITT Hartford, 251 Conn. 106 (Conn. 1999) (accrual occurs when plaintiff first could have successfully maintained the action).
Orticelli v. Powers, 197 Conn. 9 (Conn. 1985) (§ 7-101a(d) time/notice provisions limit actions under § 7-101a; discussed scope of subsection (d)).
Norwich v. Silverberg, 200 Conn. 367 (Conn. 1986) (§ 7-101a does not apply where municipality sues its employee; limits statute’s reach).
Vibert v. Board of Education, 260 Conn. 167 (Conn. 2002) ("protect and save harmless" language mandates indemnification, not a duty to defend).
Link v. Shelton, 186 Conn. 623 (Conn. 1982) (indemnification statutes do not authorize recovery of fees spent enforcing indemnity rights in a separate action).
State v. Jackson, 153 Conn. App. 639 (Conn. App. 2014) (statutory construction is a question of law subject to plenary review).
Dark-Eyes v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 276 Conn. 559 (Conn. 2006) (use of statute text and related statutes as primary interpretive tools).
Maciejewski v. West Hartford, 194 Conn. 139 (Conn. 1984) (prefer statutory constructions that avoid unreasonable or bizarre results).