Arrington v. Martinez
215 N.C. App. 252
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff, administrator of Nyles Arrington’s estate, sues City of Raleigh, its Police Department, La Rosa Linda’s owner, and an officer arising from the fatal shooting by Officer Peele at La Rosa Linda’s; Peele was a Raleigh officer and part-time security guard at the restaurant.
- Plaintiff asserted NC constitutional claims, negligence theories, respondeat superior and premises liability, wrongful death, and punitive damages against various defendants.
- The federal action dismissed several claims; upon remand, the City moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds.
- The trial court partially granted summary judgment, denying immunity-based relief, and this appeal followed.
- The issue centers on whether the City’s limited waiver of immunity under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-485 and the related insurance/retained-limit structure permits plaintiff’s claims.
- The Fourth Circuit remanded to determine state-law immunity issues, and the NC Court of Appeals reviews whether the City properly waived immunity and whether the claims fall within the waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City waived immunity for plaintiff’s claims. | Arrington argues waiver via insurance; broad waiver covers damages. | City argues only limited waiver under §160A-485 applies; no release executed. | Limited waiver exists; immunity not triggered due to failure to execute required release. |
| Whether the City’s self-funded reserve and two excess policies cover plaintiff’s damages. | Plaintiff can recover under SFR and excess policies. | SFR must be exhausted first; insurance triggers only for excess beyond retained limit. | Coverage not available because SFR not exhausted and release condition unmet. |
| Whether the constitutional claims against City/Peele survive immunity analysis. | Constitutional claims not barred by immunity. | Constitutional claims may be barred; not addressed on record. | Court declines to address constitutional issue due to lack of proper briefing on immunity applicability. |
| Whether the appeal from denial of summary judgment on immunity is proper as interlocutory. | N/A | Such denial is immediately appealable as a substantial right. | Interlocutory appeal proper for denial of immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334 (2009) (immunity as a substantial right, and immunity defenses)
- Hallman v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 124 N.C.App. 435 (1996) (strict construction of waiver statutes)
- Overcash v. Statesville City Bd. of Educ., 83 N.C.App. 21 (1986) (strict interpretation of waiver; immunity extends only to extent of waiver)
- Guthrie v. State Ports Authority, 307 N.C. 522 (1983) (waivers must be narrowly construed; immunity limited to waiver scope)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (immunity from suit; not merely defense to liability)
- Viar v. N.C. DOT, 359 N.C. 400 (2005) (principles for addressing immunity issues on appeal)
- Kirkpatrick v. Town of Nags Head, N.C.App. , 713 S.E.2d 151 (2011) (recent treatment of sovereign immunity on municipality’s appeal)
- Zimmer v. North Carolina Dept. of Transp., 87 N.C.App. 132 (1987) (jurisdictional considerations in immunity challenges)