Laserfiche WebLink
3490 Lexington Avenue North <br />League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126 -8044 <br />June 15, 1994 <br />RECE11/173 MA 1 <br />1094 <br />Dear Fellow LMCIT member: <br />Many of you recently received a letter from the City of Afton, <br />asking you to urge the LMCIT Board of Trustees to drop a pending <br />appeal and to reimburse three Afton council members for legal <br />costs they incurred in defending themselves against the charges <br />that they violated the open meeting law. A number of city <br />officials have asked about this matter, so we thought it might <br />be useful to outline how LMCIT has approached the issue and why. <br />Three members of the Afton city council were charged with <br />violating the open meeting law. The city submitted the claim <br />under the city's LMCIT liability coverage, and LMCIT disclaimed <br />coverage. The reason is that the LMCIT liability coverage <br />provides that LMCIT will cover and provide a defense for claims <br />seeking "damages ". The coverage document provides that <br />"damages" does not include fines or penalties. This definition <br />of "damages" was modeled after typical language found in <br />commercial liability insurance policies. <br />The open meeting law at the time provided for a $100 "civil <br />penalty ", and for removal from office after three violations. <br />Litigation under the open meeting law is therefor by definition <br />an action seeking a penalty - not a claim for "damages." Since <br />it is not a claim for damages, LMCIT's position is and has <br />always been that these defense costs are not covered by the <br />LMCIT liability coverage. <br />The council members sued LMCIT, challenging LMCIT's disclaimer <br />of coverage. The trial court ruled that there was no coverage. <br />The city officials appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeals, <br />which ruled that there was coverage. The Appeals Court first <br />ruled that the city had the legal authority to reimburse the <br />officials' legal costs; and then simply said that because the <br />city was authorized to reimburse the city officials for these <br />costs, LMCIT was required to do so. <br />We believe that the Court of Appeals decision is incorrect and <br />misreads what the LMCIT liability coverage document actually <br />says. LMCIT therefor asked the Supreme Court to review the <br />Appeals Court's decision. The Supreme Court agreed to do so, <br />and the appeal is proceeding. <br />The City of Afton's letter suggests that LMCIT should drop this <br />appeal and reimburse the city officials for their legal costs. <br />But because LMCIT is a cooperative organization of cities, the <br />Page 106 <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER <br />(612)490-5600 1. 800.925- 1122plusyourcitycade TDD(612)490.9038 Fax(612)490 -0072 <br />