360 S.W.3d 805
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Griffith, a Doniphan R-I School District bus driver, molested a preschool child on a district bus in 2006; he was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.
- The child sued Griffith in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, obtaining a judgment against Griffith in his individual capacity; the judgment stated his conduct arose from official duties on behalf of the State.
- The child then filed a circuit court declaratory action seeking the State Legal Expense Fund to satisfy the judgment against Griffith personally.
- Defendants admitted Griffith was a district employee and that the molestation occurred, but denied that Griffith’s conduct arose out of or was performed in connection with any official duty on behalf of the State; they argued the Fund does not cover school district employees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and Plaintiff appealed seeking a ruling that the district is an “agency of the state” for Fund purposes, which would require Fund coverage.
- The issue on appeal is whether the school district is an “agency of the state” under section 105.711 so that the Fund must pay judgments against district employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public school district is an “agency of the state” for Fund purposes. | School districts are part of state government and carry out state functions. | School districts are political subdivisions, not state agencies; not covered by 105.711. | Not an agency of the state; Fund does not cover district employees. |
| Whether the federal judgment labeling the district as an “agency or arm of the state” binds Fund officials. | Federal judgment premise should bind the Fund to provide defense. | Federal findings do not bind the Fund; overlap is not guaranteed. | Not binding; Fund not obligated by federal judgment findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Holden, 923 S.W.2d 370 (Mo.App.1996) (funds available to judgment creditors against state employees; framework for Fund purpose)
- Betts-Lucas v. Hartmann, 87 S.W.3d 310 (Mo.App.2002) (Fund coverage for DMH employee wrongful death case)
- Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442 (Mo.App.2007) (whether Fund bound by federal court findings when state interests unrepresented)
- Smith v. State, 152 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. banc 2005) (Smith held Board of Police Commissioners was an agency of the state; later legislatively overruled)
- City of Edina v. School District, 305 Mo. 452, 267 S.W. 112 (Mo. 1924) (early framing of school districts as part of state government)
- Cates v. Webster, 727 S.W.2d 901 (Mo. banc 1987) (counties not state agencies for Fund purposes)
- Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Dir. of Revenue, 64 S.W.3d 832 (Mo. banc 2002) (strict interpretation of sovereign immunity waivers)