Alabama Municipal Ins. Corp. v. Allen, [Ms. 1121006, Sept. 26, 2014] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2014). The Court holds
that a police officer driving to work in the patrol car assigned to him
was not within the scope of the $100,000 statutory cap of ¤ 11-47-190
for municipalities. The police officer was sued in his individual capacity
and the circuit court entered judgments against him for the two plaintiffs
in the amount of $700,000 and $1,100,000. The Court reaffirms its recent
holding in
Morrow v. Caldwell, [Ms. 1111359, Mar. 14, 2014] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2014), and rejects the
arguments by the City of Madison and its insurer. "The City opted
to have its police officers' vehicles insured for activities outside
the officers' employment, and AMIC accepted premiums for such coverage
and has admitted that [the defendant officer] was an insured under its
policy with the City." Justice Murdock concurs in the rationale in
part and concurs in the result, questioning the majority opinion's
comments "that 'the legislature is better suited to speak comprehensively
on the individual liability of municipal employees.'" Justice
Murdock notes that "where the employee is
not considered a State agent and
has breached some individual duty owed by him or her to a third party, provisions
of the Alabama constitution appear to present an obstacle to a legislative
prescription of limits on individual liability."
