360 S.W.3d 805
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Fall 2006: Griffith, a Doniphan R-I School District bus driver, molested a four-year-old on a bus.
- Griffith was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration; the Child won a judgment against Griffith in federal court in his individual capacity.
- Child then filed a declaratory-judgment action in circuit court against Koster (Attorney General) and Simmons (Commissioner of Administration) seeking Fund coverage for the Griffith judgment.
- Defendants admitted Griffith was a district employee and that the molestation occurred in connection with his official duties, but denied that the conduct arose out of official state duties and asserted sovereign immunity.
- Both sides moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted judgment for Defendants, ruling none of the claims fell within the State Legal Expense Fund coverage.
- Appellate review is de novo and involves statutory construction to determine whether the School District is an 'agency of the state' for Fund purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Doniphan R-I School District an 'agency of the state' for Fund purposes under 105.711.2(2)? | Wagoner argues the District is a state agency or otherwise within Fund coverage. | Koster/Simmons contend school districts are political subdivisions, not state agencies, and thus not within Fund scope. | No; the District is not an 'agency of the state' for Fund purposes. |
| If not an 'agency of the state', is Defendants' reliance on federal judgment binding or controlling? | Wagoner suggests the federal judgment's characterization should bind the Fund. | Koster/Simmons argue federal findings are not binding on Missouri Fund decisions; the district’s status is determined by Missouri law. | The trial court's and appellate court's ruling remains that federal findings do not bind the Fund actions; the District is not an agency of the state for Fund purposes. |
| Does the Missouri MOPERM statute (537.700, et seq.) or related provisions affect the interpretation of 'agency of the state' in 105.711? | Wagoner argues broader interpretation should include districts as funded by state relationship. | Koster/Simmons emphasize clear statutory separation between state agencies and political subdivisions; MOPERM covers local entities. | Yes; the court tightly construes 'agency of the state' and finds school districts are not within 105.711’s reach, aligning with MOPERM's scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Holden, 923 S.W.2d 370 (Mo.App.1996) (funds may cover judgments against state employees; framework for Fund purposes)
- Smith v. State, 152 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. banc 2005) (police board in St. Louis deemed an agency of the state; later legislatively overruled)
- Betts-Lucas v. Hartmann, 87 S.W.3d 310 (Mo.App.2002) (Fund coverage for state employee judgments in human services context)
- Cravens v. Nixon, 234 S.W.3d 442 (Mo.App.2007) (inmate claim under Federal civil rights against DOC employee; Fund involvement)
- Cates v. Webster, 727 S.W.2d 901 (Mo.banc 1987) (county not a state agency for Fund purposes; distinctions between entities)
- City of Edina v. School District, 305 Mo. 452, 267 S.W. 112 (Mo.1950s) (historical treatment of school districts as part of state government)