# Sahli v. Woodbine Board of Education

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · January 30, 2008 · 193 N.J. 309

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630662

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald W. Sahli, Esq., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Woodbine Board of Education, Atlantic and Cape May Counties Association of School Business Officials Joint Insurance Fund and Specialty National Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** January 30, 2008
- **Citations:** 193 N.J. 309; 938 A.2d 923; 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 327; 2008 N.J. LEXIS 12
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Rivera-Soto
- **Judges:** Long, Rabner, Lavecchia, Wallace, Hoens, Albin, Iiib, Rivera-Soto
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630662

## Opinion text

Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
To the extent the majority holds that “N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 does not mandate that [a board of education] indemnify its attorney for the defense of a civil action against him in his capacity as Board solicitor[,]” and that this Board attorney is not entitled to insurance coverage for his actions as Board solicitor, ante at 324, 938 A.2d at 925, I concur with the majority’s reasoning and result.
*328 However, to the extent the majority also holds that “because the Board’s attorney in this case was also sued in his capacity as secretary pro tern to the Board, he is entitled to indemnification for his conduct in that position” and that “he is entitled to insurance coverage as a volunteer in acting as secretary[,]” ibid., I respectfully dissent substantially for the reasons so cogently stated by Judge Payne in her opinion below, Sahli v. Woodbine Bd. of Ed., 386 N.J.Super. 533 , 902 A.2d 296 (App.Div.2006).
For affirmance in part/reversal in part/remandment —Chief Justice RABNER, and Justices LaVECCHIA, WALLACE and HOENS—4.
Concurring in part; dissenting in part III A—Justices LONG and ALBIN—2.
Concurring in part/dissenting in parts IIIB & TV — Justice RIVERA-SOTO — 1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630662. Public record. Not legal advice.