In re Defense and Indemnification of Matthew Severance - Awaijane v. Bittell, In re Defense and ...

Minn. Ct. App.October 27, 2025No. a241662

Defendant WinCity of Minneapolis

Case Details

Status: Unpublished
Procedural Posture: appeal
State: Minnesota

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the City of Minneapolis's denial of defense and indemnification requests by five former/current police officers in connection with a federal civil rights lawsuit, finding the city's determinations of malfeasance, willful neglect, or bad faith were supported by substantial evidence.

Excerpt

In these consolidated certiorari appeals, relators Matthew Severance, Andrew Bittell, Christopher Cushenbery, Kristopher Dauble, and Ronald Stenerson challenge decisions by respondent City of Minneapolis denying their requests for defense and indemnification. Relators requested defense and indemnification in relation to a federal lawsuit alleging that relators, who were employed by the city as police officers, used unreasonable force while patrolling city streets during a citywide curfew imposed after the murder of George Floyd. The city denied relators' requests for defense and indemnification after determining that they were "guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith." Minn. Stat. § 466.07, subd. 1(2) (2024). On appeal, relators argue that the city exceeded its authority in denying relators' defense-and-indemnification requests, that the city's decisions violated relators' constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, and that the decisions are unsupported by substantial evidence and are arbitrary. Severance brought a motion to supplement the record for his appeal. We construe the motion to supplement the record as a motion to complete the record, and we grant the motion. We reject relators' challenges to the city's decisions based on the city exceeding its authority and violating relators' constitutional rights because they are foreclosed by our recent decision in In re Defense & Indemnification of Brown, ___ N.W.3d ___, 2025 WL 2901740 (Minn. App. Oct. 13, 2025), or they are otherwise unavailing. And we conclude that the city's decisions to deny relators defense and indemnification are supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary. We therefore affirm.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Five Minneapolis police officers were sued in federal court for allegedly using excessive force while enforcing the citywide curfew that was put in place after George Floyd's death. The officers asked the City of Minneapolis to pay for their legal defense and cover any potential damages from the lawsuit. The city refused both requests. The officers then appealed the city's decision to the court system. **What the Court Decided** The Minnesota Court of Appeals sided with the city and upheld their refusal to provide legal defense or pay damages for the officers. The court found that the city had substantial evidence to support its decision and that the denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable. This means the officers must handle their legal defense on their own. **What This Means for Workers** This ruling shows that public employees cannot automatically expect their employer to cover legal costs when they face lawsuits related to their job duties. Even though many government workers have some protections, those protections have limits. If employees are accused of misconduct or acting beyond their authority, their employer may legally refuse to provide legal support, leaving workers personally responsible for defending themselves in court.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

Minn. Ct. App.Dec 2016

Plaintiff Win

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City of Minneapolis

Unknown CourtApr 1982

Plaintiff Win

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

3rd CircuitSep 2008

Defendant Win

Margaret Reynolds v. Shireen Gandhi, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, ...

Minn. Ct. App.Apr 2026

Appellant challenges a district court order affirming the decision of respondent commissioner, which disqualified appellant from certain employment positions for seven years based on a determination that she seriously maltreated a vulnerable adult. Appellant argues that the commissioner's maltreatment determination improperly relied on hearsay evidence in violation of her procedural-due-process rights and is not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant also argues that the disqualification should have been set aside. We affirm.

Defendant Win

Read Full Opinion More City of Minneapolis Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.