Arkansas State Claims Commission v. Duit Construction Co.
2014 Ark. 432
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Duit Construction contracted with ASHTD in 2002 for an I-30 improvement in Saline/Pulaski Counties.
- In 2006 Duit’s Request for Equitable Adjustment for cost overruns was denied by ASHTD.
- Duit filed a claim with ASCC on May 5, 2011; ASCC denied for lack of proof of liability by ASHTD.
- January 9, 2012, Claims Review Subcommittee remanded Duit’s claim to ASCC for further evidence; ASCC held a partial rehearing and again denied.
- Duit pursued appeals: petition for writ of certiorari and declaratory relief challenging the state’s claim-resolution framework; circuit court granted some dismissals based on sovereign immunity, while allowing due-process/equal-protection claims related to differential treatment of nonresident contractors to proceed; order ultimately reversed and remanded on sovereign-immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Duit’s suit. | Duit argues unconstitutional-act exception bypasses immunity. | Appellants contend sovereign immunity bars any monetary relief and that no exception applies. | Unconstitutional-act exception not supported; equal-protection claim dismissed; sovereign immunity applies. |
| Whether Duit pled facts to show equal-protection violation. | Duit alleges residents were favored over non-residents in ASCC decisions. | Defendants argue lack of factual pleading shows no state-action discrimination. | Equal-protection claim not plead with sufficient facts; barred by sovereign immunity. |
| Whether the cross-appeal/division of claims constitutes a final, appealable order. | Duit contends circuit court order disposed of all claims. | Appellants contend order was non-final and not subject to Rule 2(a)(10). | Order not final; cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the interlocutory appeal is authorized by Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(10). | Duit seeks appeal from denial/grant of sovereign-immunity defenses. | Rule 2(a)(10) covers denials based on immunity only; here partial determinations were made. | Rule 2(a)(10) does not authorize; cross-appeal improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Arkansas, 341 Ark. 495, 17 S.W.3d 809 (2000), 341 Ark. 495, 17 S.W.3d 809 (Ark. 2000) (unconstitutional acts exception requires adequate factual pleading; equal protection analysis involves state action)
- Arkansas Dep’t Cmty. Corr. v. City of Pine Bluff, 2013 Ark. 36, 425 S.W.3d 731, 2013 Ark. 36, 425 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2013) (sovereign-immunity framework extended to state agencies)
- Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Arkansas v. Burcham, 2014 Ark. 61, 2014 Ark. 61, 425 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2014) (recognizes three avenues to surmount sovereign immunity)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Washington, 2012 Ark. 325, 2012 Ark. 325 (Ark. 2012) (Rule 54(b) final-judgment considerations for partial dismissals)
- Robinson v. Villines, 2012 Ark. 211, 2012 Ark. 211 (Ark. 2012) (finality and appealability standards for circuit-court orders)
- Arkansas Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Arkansas, 2009 Ark. 297, 318 S.W.3d 570, 2009 Ark. 297, 318 S.W.3d 570 (Ark. 2009) (standard for testing sufficiency of complaints on motions to dismiss)