BILL NUMBER: S3515

SPONSOR: FERNANDEZ
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the general municipal law, in relation to requiring
police officers to maintain liability insurance; and to amend the public
officers law, in relation to excluding police officers from provisions
requiring defense and indemnification of state officers and employees

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To require police officers to carry individual liability insurance.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 amends the General Municipal Law by adding a new section 52-a
to require all police officers obtain liability insurance and maintain
coverage during the course of their employment as a police officer.
Their employer must cover the base rate of the policy.

Section 2 amends section 17, subdivision 1 of the public officers law to
              

exclude police officers and peace officers from employees indemnified
and held harmless by the state.

Section 3 sets forth the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Every year, New York City taxpayers spend millions of dollars paying out
claims against NYPD officers for using excessive force, violating civil
rights, making false arrests or imprisonments, and other misconduct.
Between July 2017 and June 2018, New York City paid out $230 million in
6,472 cases, according to a report released by NYC Comptroller
Stringer's Office. Claims against the NYPD represented 36% of all tort
claims in FY 2017-18.1 And while the city pays out millions each year,
officers often face little to no accountability for their actions.
Taxpayers should not be responsible for bailing out police officers who
engage in misconduct. Yet, indemnity provisions in state law protect
officers from any personal liability.  This legislation would exempt
police officers and peace officers from the provisions in the Public
Officers Law that hold state employees harmless in legal judgements
filed in state or federal court.

Instead, officers will be required to obtain personal liability insur-
ance that covers any claims against them for acts or omissions that
occur during the time they are on the clock. The entity that employs
them will be required to cover the base rate of the policy.  Officers
who engage in misconduct, and as a result have claims brought against
them, will see their premium go up, creating a financial disincentive
for misconduct. Officers who repeatedly engage in misconduct may see
their rates go up until it becomes cost prohibitive, forcing officers to
change behaviors or leave the field of law enforcement.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2021-2022: S1064 / A2462

2020: S8676 / A10780
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

TBD

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.