AAC
Family & Friends
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
Personal use of county vehicles increases potential liability
A
e L gal p U date
CA 21-9-301 provides statutory negligence im- protected by the statutory immumunity to counties. In addition, the Arkansas Su- nity normally afforded a county preme Court has held that the immunity provided and its officials and employees. in ACA 21-9-301 also applies to the officials and If judgment is rendered against employees of the county [Doe v. Baum, 348 Ark. 259, 270 the official in excess of the pol(2002); See Cousins v. Dennis, 298 Ark. 310 (1989)]. However, icy limits on the vehicle, most there is a limited exception to the tort immunity of counties likely state minimum limits of and their employees, and that rests in the area of automobile $25,000/50,000/25,000 as disnegligence and liability. cussed above, then the official Arkansas law requires counties to carry minimum liability would be responsible for payment Brandy McAllister limits of $25,000 for injury or death of one person, up to of the excess judgment. Using our Risk Management $50,000 per accident if more than one person is injured and example, if the plaintiff was awardLegal Counsel $25,000 for property damage per accident [ACA 21-9-303(a)]. ed judgment against the official in The county and its officials and employees are not immune to the amount of $60,000 for bodily the extent they have insurance. Thus, if a county carries the injury of one person and the protection limits were $25,000, minimum liability limthen the county official its, it is immune from would be responsible for suit above and beyond payment of the excess those limits. Similarly, judgment of $35,000. if a county elects to purAdditionally, if an off an official or employee uses a county vehicle at chase additional coverficial or employee uses a age, its immunity exists county vehicle while he above and beyond those a time other than when he is working on official is working, but he uses higher limits. the vehicle for a nonThis means that councounty business, he is potentially exposed to additional li- work related purpose, ties, county officials, there is also potential liand county employees ability over and above the auto protection provided by the ability exposure. For exare statutorily immune ample: a county employfrom motor vehicle negee is at work and driving county’s insurer or self-insurance risk pool. ligence liability exceeda county vehicle, he ing $25,000 bodily indecides to drive to Waljury per person, $50,000 Mart or run several erbodily injury per occurrands on his lunch break rence and $25,000 propin the county vehicle, erty damage per occurrence, unless waived by the purchase of and in the process he causes an accident. The accident results additional insurance. in a lawsuit, and judgment is rendered against the employee However, there is a stipulation to when county officials and for $55,000 for bodily injury of one person. Even though the county employees are protected by these immunities: at the time of the accident the official or employee must have been accident occurred during the county employee’s workday, the working in the course and scope of his county employment. fact that he was driving to take care of personal business can [Carlew v. Wright, 356 Ark. 208, 216 (2004), See Cousins v. put him outside of the course and scope of his employment for tort immunity purposes. This means the county employDennis, 298 Ark. 310 (1989)]. If an official or employee uses a county vehicle at a time ee would be liable for the amount of the judgment in excess other than when he is working on official county business, he of any available coverage amount. If the policy would pay is potentially exposed to additional liability over and above $25,000, then the employee would be personally responsible the auto protection provided by the county’s insurer or self- for the difference of $30,000. The best way to ensure that county employees and officials insurance risk pool. For example: A county official takes his vehicle home every night, and on the way home he stops to who drive county-owned and insured vehicles outside of the pick up dinner. When leaving the restaurant parking lot, he course and scope of their employment duties are adequately causes an accident that results in a lawsuit against him. Since protected is for each driver to check with his own personal the official was not operating the vehicle within the scope and auto insurance carrier and find out if his policy provides seccourse of his employment at the time of the accident, he is not ondary coverage for him if he is driving another vehicle.
“I
”
18
COUNTY LINES, FALL 2014
