The Marshall County Commissioners on Dec. 22 approved a settlement that will dissolve the Marshall County Regional Sewer District and dismiss pending litigation between the parties. County attorney Sean summarized the terms, saying the district must wind up its affairs within 60 days and both sides will release claims against one another, with a limited exception for future claims tied to intentional illegal acts.

The agreement includes a six-year directors-and-officers "tail" insurance policy to extend coverage for board members after dissolution, Sean said, noting the policy carries a $5,000 deductible per claim. Under the settlement, the county agreed to pay the deductible amounts up to $40,000 total so that individual former board members would not be personally responsible for that out-of-pocket cost.

Why it matters: The settlement ends a dispute that spawned litigation involving the sewer district and related appeals, and it shifts a limited financial exposure from former board members to the county’s regular funds. Dismissal of the litigation against Mr. McFadden and Elkhart and the pending appeal of the dissolution order in Marion County were explicitly covered, and Sean said a separate settlement involving Mr. Woodward is being handled outside this agreement.

Details of the agreement, as described by the county’s speaker: the sewer district will be dissolved within 60 days; the tail insurance was purchased for six years (a timeframe the county said aligns with statute-of-limitations considerations); and the county will cover deductible payments up to $40,000 if any covered claim triggers the policy. Sean said, “Nobody admits any wrongdoing, and it’s everybody’s just settling this to, you know, buy a piece and get on with our lives, basically.”

Legal context: The county’s explanation referenced general statutory protections—contractual-liability principles and tort-immunity for discretionary functions—that make personal liability for board members unlikely for many actions taken in a policy-making capacity. County staff and counsel said those immunities factored into settlement discussions, but they also agreed to the insurance tail and county deductible coverage as a practical matter to minimize future claims against individuals.

Public comment and next steps: Resident Edward Bridal asked whether the settlement could be reversed after signatures; staff and counsel answered that once the council and commissioners sign the agreement and the parties complete the closing paperwork, the agreement will bind the parties. Commissioners approved the settlement by voice vote after a motion and second; the meeting record did not show a roll-call tally by name.

Copies of the settlement were made available by request to the county office, and staff asked that any follow-up questions be directed to the county attorney’s office.