My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/7/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
7/7/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:19 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:41:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/07/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAWSUIT -- BENT PINE UTILITIES vs. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/1/87: <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney <br />DATE: July 1, 1987 <br />RE: AGENDA - BCC MEETING 7/7/87 <br />COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS <br />BENT PINE UTILITIES v. <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAWSUIT <br />The County was served with a lawsuit today filed by Bent <br />Pint Utility Corp. against the Indian River County as well <br />as Don C. Scurlock, Jr. personally and Terrance G. Pinto <br />personally. <br />Pursuant to §111.07, Florida Statutes, the County is <br />authorized to provide attorneys' representation at the <br />County's expense for employees who are sued as a result of <br />their employment. Pursuant to this state authorization, the <br />County has adopted a local ordinance requiring that such <br />representation be provided. State law further provides that <br />if the employee is found liable as a result of acting in bad <br />faith, with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting <br />wanton and willful disregard of human rights or property, <br />that the County may seek reimbursement of the attorneys' <br />fees from the employee. l recommend that Commissioner <br />Scurlock and Mr. Pinto each hire his own outside council to <br />be paid for by the County. <br />Concerning the defense of the County, I will be a witness in <br />the case and, thus, may not be allowed to handle the <br />County's representation. We will send the case to the <br />County's insurance carriers to see 1f it will be handled <br />under our normal procedures. <br />Attorney Vitunac recommended that the Board authorize the <br />hiring of private attorneys for Commissioner Scurlock and <br />Utilities Director Terry Pinto. He pointed out that the Board <br />has adopted that policy in the past, and it is authorized by the <br />State also. If Commissioner Scurlock and Mr. Pinto lose the <br />case, the Board can go back and get the attorney fees; however, <br />he felt it is highly unlikely that they would lose the case. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked if Attorney Vitunac would be <br />representing the County, and Attorney Vitunac advised that he has <br />sent the case to our insurance company as he expects to be called <br />as a witness for Commissioner Scurlock and Mr. Pinto. <br />63 <br />4S, <br />s <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.