When a Vermont sheriff's department is sued and the county-purchased liability policy has a $10,000 deductible, who pays the deductible?

Plain-English summary

The Chittenden County Sheriff was sued in federal court over the department's role in Brady firearms background checks. The lawsuit was dismissed but the defense bill ran past $12,000, leaving the department on the hook for a $10,000 policy deductible. The sheriff asked the county to cover the deductible. The county said no and agreed to let the AG settle the question.

Assistant Attorney General Michael McShane concluded the county had to pay. The relevant statute, 24 V.S.A. § 73, said the county "shall" provide funds to pay liability insurance premiums for the sheriff and deputies. A literal reading of "premiums" alone would have left the deductible unfunded, but the AG read the statute together with its history.

When the legislature first introduced the insurance language in 1978 (1977 Adj. Sess. Act 218), counties had the option to fund insurance. In 1988 (Public Act No. 262) the legislature changed the language from permissive to mandatory and said the bill's purpose was to "increase the fiscal accountability of the sheriff's departments" by following the recommendations of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Office of Sheriff. That committee's report explicitly assigned all operating costs not specifically given to the state to the county. A deductible is a cost of operating the department, so it landed on the county.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

24 V.S.A. § 73 has been amended several times since 2001, and Vermont has continued to revise the funding split between counties and the state for sheriff's departments. Anyone evaluating a current sheriff-deductible question should consult the present § 73 text and any successor provisions, plus current liability insurance arrangements (which often run through the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Property and Casualty Intermunicipal Fund).

Historical summary

For sheriffs (at the time): The opinion supported a sheriff's request that the county fund a deductible after a successful defense. The legal basis was § 73 read against the 1988 fiscal-accountability legislative purpose and the Joint Legislative Committee report.

For county government (at the time): The opinion read § 73 as a broad operating-cost mandate, not just a premium subsidy. Counties planning sheriff-department budgets had to anticipate deductibles as well as premiums.

For statutory interpretation researchers: The AG used State v. Lynch, 137 Vt. 607 (1979), for the proposition that statutory interpretation considers the "reason and spirit" of the statute, not just its letter. The legislative history rather than the words "liability insurance premiums" carried the day.

Common questions

Was the AG opinion binding on the county?
No. AG opinions are persuasive authority. The opinion explicitly noted that "opinions of this office are only opinions and do not create, negate or affect legal rights or entitlements." The county could have litigated the question.

Did the opinion address gross negligence or punitive damages?
No. The case had been dismissed. The question was about who paid the policy deductible after a successful defense, not about coverage limits or carve-outs.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- 24 V.S.A. § 73 (county obligations to sheriff's department)
- 3 V.S.A. § 159 (procedure for AG opinions)
- 1977 (Adj. Sess.) Acts & Resolves No. 218 (introducing permissive county insurance funding)
- 1988 Acts & Resolves No. 262 (mandatory funding and Joint Committee recommendations)

Cases:
- State v. Lynch, 137 Vt. 607 (1979) (statutory interpretation considers reason and spirit)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.vermont.gov/about-attorney-generals-office/attorney-general-opinions
• Original PDF: https://ago.vermont.gov/sites/ago/files/2025-11/FO%202001-1.pdf

Original opinion text

June 13, 2001
Kevin McLaughlin, Sheriff
Chittenden County Sheriff's Department
P.O. Box 1426
Burlington VT 05402
Re: 24 V.S.A. § 73 - Opinion Number 2001-1
Dear Sheriff McLaughlin:
Pursuant to 3 V.S.A. § 159 you have requested an opinion interpreting 24 V.S.A. § 73
concerning liability insurance. Specifically, you ask whether, under the circumstances set forth
below, the County is obligated to pay the deductible amount under the terms of your office's
liability insurance policy.
In 1999 you and your department were defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Vermont. Your involvement in this suit arose as a
result of the role played by your department in so called "Brady gun checks" for firearm
purchases made in the State of Vermont. The lawsuit was dismissed. Attorneys' fees for
the defense of you and your department exceeded $12,000. You have been presented
with a bill in the amount of $10,000, which represents the deductible under the liability
insurance policy that has been purchased for your department. You have requested that
the County reimburse your department for this deductible. The County has declined
reimbursement but approves of your request for an opinion from this office.
For purposes of this opinion we assume that the facts are as presented.
It is the opinion of this office that the County is required to pay the deductible.
24 V.S.A. § 73 reads as follows:
(a) The county shall provide the sheriff with an adequate bond, a suitable
office, office equipment and supplies and adequate telephone service.
The sheriff's department shall also be provided with law enforcement
equipment, supplies, insurance and funds for maintaining and
operating such equipment as the assistant judges consider necessary to ensure that the
department operates in a safe, accountable and professional manner. The county shall also
provide reasonable secretarial assistance and bookkeeping assistance. The county shall
also provide funds necessary for department personnel to comply with basic and in-service
training requirements established by the Vermont criminal justice training council, funds to
provide the matching share of grants from federal, state or private sources, and funds to pay
the liability insurance premiums for the sheriff and his deputies.

We recognize that an argument can be made that the above language is specific and
only requires payment of insurance premiums. The counter argument is that the above
language expresses legislative intent that the County is responsible for liability
insurance and that responsibility would include payment of a deductible.
In determining the meaning of a clause of a statute, it is permissible to consider not
only the letter of the statute, but, more importantly, its reason and spirit. State v. Lynch, 137
Vt. 607, 613 (1979). To that end legislative history is important.
24 V.S.A. § 73 has a relatively lengthy history. While counties have long had some
obligation to support sheriff's departments there was no reference to liability insurance in the
statute until 1978. In that year the following language was added to the statute:

The county may also provide funds to train sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, funds to
provide the matching share for grants from federal, state or private sources, and funds
to pay the liability insurance premiums for the sheriff and his deputies. (Public Acts,
1977 Adj. Session No. 218)
The above quoted language uses the permissive "may" and thus gave counties the
option to provide for liability insurance.
One decade later that which was optional was turned into a mandate. The current
language was added to the statute by Public Acts, 1988 Session, No. 262. The current
language reads in relevant part, as follows:
The County shall also provide funds necessary for department personnel to comply
with basic and in-service training requirements established by the Vermont criminal
justice training council, funds to provide the matching share for grants from federal,
state and private sources, and funds to pay for liability insurance premiums for the
sheriff and his deputies.
The statement of purpose of the bill that became Act No. 262 of the 1988 session
reads as follows:

This bill would make certain statutory changes recommended by the joint
legislative committee on the office of sheriff in order to increase the fiscal
accountably of the sheriff's departments.
(S. 262, statement of purpose)
Given that the statement of purpose of the bill that contains the statutory language
in question makes specific reference to the recommendations of the joint legislative
committee on the office of sheriff the report of that committee is of some relevance in
determining legislative intent. This is particularly true with regard to the language
concerning liability insurance because that language remained consistent from the bill as
introduced to the final version that was enacted into law.
The Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Office of Sheriff makes no
specific recommendation with regard to liability insurance. However, the report does make a
recommendation concerning the sources and level of funding for sheriff's departments. The
report recommends that the state be responsible for a number of costs and expenses relating
to sheriff's departments. The report then states as follows:
All other operating costs of the fourteen Sheriff's Departments shall be the
responsibility of the respective county government.
The above language is a clear indication of legislative intent that county government
bear those operating costs which are not specifically assigned to the state and which are
mentioned in the statutes amended to effectuate the recommendations of the joint committee.

The payment of an insurance deductible is a cost of operating a sheriff's
department. It is our opinion that it is a cost that should be paid by the County.
This opinion is limited to the specific question asked in your letter. As you know,
opinions of this office are only opinions and do not create, negate or affect legal rights or
entitlements.
Very truly yours,

Michael McShane
Assistant Attorney General