NYPD Union Complains After Re-Introduction Of Bill Requiring Officers To Carry Liability Insurance

One of many ideas floated as a solution to police misconduct issues is the requirement that officers carry their own insurance. Almost every law enforcement officer is currently indemnified by the towns and cities that employ them, ensuring they’re never personally responsible for any judgments or settlements stemming from their misconduct.

And that’s a very small percentage of civil rights lawsuits. Far more frequently, officers are allowed to walk away from these lawsuits with application of qualified immunity, a Supreme Court-created doctrine that says officers can’t be held accountable if any “reasonable” officer would not have immediately understood their actions violated constitutional rights.

The liability insurance theory goes like this: officers who become uninsurable due to multiple lawsuits will become unemployable. Given that most law enforcement agencies currently do as little as possible to discipline officers who engage in rights violations and misconduct, any nudge of the needle towards the accountability ideal is welcome.

However, there are several ways of “welcoming” news like this. One way is to appreciate a policy like this might act as a deterrent. Another way to “welcome” this news is to claim it will harm every officer, the city they work for, and the public they’re currently underserving.

That’s the case here in New York City, where the police union has stepped up to complain about the slight probability officers might need to be less inconsiderate of other people’s rights in the future. The coverage of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association’s reaction to the reintroduction of a liability insurance law is provided here by Rich Calder of the New York Post — someone who also appears to believe no one should ever make cops even the tiniest bit more accountable for their actions.

A Queens Democrat is trying to drum up City Council support for a controversial state bill requiring police officers to buy personal liability insurance in case of lawsuits — a move critics say is a veiled attempt to “Defund the Police.”

Councilwoman Nantasha Williams urged other council members this week to back the state legislation, claiming it would save local governments a fortune.

“By shifting the financial responsibility for lawsuit payouts to insurance companies and the officers themselves, local governments can save millions in taxpayer dollars,” Williams wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to her fellow council members.  

Some of this makes sense. Even if this requirement isn’t the perfect solution to perpetual police misconduct, it’s a step forward from the absolute nothing that’s currently being done in New York City.

This, of course, has led to complaints from the police union, which insists this is just a way to make cops go broke.

“Requiring already underpaid cops to pay for liability insurance will chase away recruits and drive even more experienced cops towards the exits,” [PBA president Patrick] Hendry added. “If the City Council really cared about saving money, it would demand that the city start fighting suits against cops instead of settling.”

“Underpaid” is always the first argument, no matter how well-paid police officers are. The mileage varies, but it’s extremely difficult to argue NYPD officers are underpaid — not when the PD pays officers nearly $60,000/year to start and doubles that salary after they’ve served 5.5 years on the force.

Then there’s the bigger problem: the (unchallenged by reporter Rich Calder) assertion that officers will be paying out of their own pockets for this insurance. The bill makes it clear the city will be paying most, if not all, of the bill for officer liability insurance.

The city, county, town, village, authority or agency shall cover the base rate of the policy required by this section.

An officer will only have to start dipping into their own funds when their insurance policy exceeds the base rate — something that will only happen when an officer is sued often enough that the insurance company feels the need to hike the officer’s rate. Even then, officers will only be required to cover the difference between their rate and the base rate. Defunding this ain’t. And if an officer decides to quit because they don’t feel like paying for the indirect results of their actions, GOOD. More officers should leave the force if they feel they can’t enforce the law without violating rights.

Calder’s article ends with a paragraph that doesn’t make the point he thinks it makes, despite his addition of a bunch of unnecessary adjectives.

Williams in her letter cited an April report released by Comptroller Brad Lander, an anti-cop socialist running for mayor, showing lawsuits against NYPD cops increased 50% from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2023. The report also said settlement and judgement payouts during the same period rose 12%, from $239.1 million to $266.7 million.

That certainly doesn’t demonstrate that requiring cops to carry liability insurance is a bad idea. In fact, it shows the opposite. While the city will cover the base rate, repeat offenders will have to cover some of the premiums with their own funds. Nothing in the bill changes anything in terms of indemnification, which means the city will still have the option of stepping in to provide officers with its own insurance coverage during lawsuits.

And, while the PBA and Rich Calder himself say the city settles too many lawsuits, this oversight report makes it clear settlements are only part of the tax burden inflicted on NYC taxpayers. The rest of it is judgments secured via trials — something that only happens when cops violate the Constitution too much for courts to ignore or ignore long-standing precedent. This is not the result of a few bad apples crossing the line or officers making honest mistakes when dealing with quickly evolving situations. This is the direct result of misconduct being ignored by the NYPD and officers with long histories of rights violations considered to be among the “finest” New York’s Finest have to offer.