Board of Regents of University System v. Brooks
324 Ga. App. 15
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs (James Brooks and 68 others), hourly employees of LRL, sued the Board of Regents after LRL failed to pay wages under a maintenance/service contract with Georgia Southern University (GSU).
- LRL had submitted a payment bond allegedly issued by Hartford; Hartford informed claimants the bond was a forgery after Plaintiffs filed a claim in July 2010.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Board of Regents was negligent and negligent per se for failing to obtain, confirm, and ensure the existence of a valid payment bond under OCGA §§ 13-10-62, 13-10-63.
- Board of Regents moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity, failure to comply with GTCA ante litem notice, statute of limitations, and that the cited bond statutes did not apply; trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and held sovereign immunity barred the suit; the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars suit against Board of Regents | Board waived immunity by GTCA or bond statutes; Board liable for negligence in failing to confirm bond | Board of Regents is a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity absent a specific legislative waiver | Held: Sovereign immunity bars the action; plaintiffs failed to show a waiver |
| Whether OCGA §§13-10-60–65 (payment-bond statutes) imposed a duty on Board to confirm bond validity | §§13-10-62/63 required Board to obtain and verify payment bond for contract, creating duty | Statutes apply only to "public works construction" bonds; the GSU contract was routine maintenance, not public works construction | Held: Plaintiffs did not show the statutes applied; no duty to investigate bond beyond facial sufficiency |
| Whether GTCA procedural requirements (ante litem notice/statute of limitations) preclude suit | Plaintiffs claimed statutory remedies allowed suit against the State | Board argued GTCA conditions must be strictly followed and plaintiffs failed to meet them | Held: Court did not reach these arguments because sovereign immunity resolved the appeal in favor of Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Ga. Dept. of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC, 313 Ga. App. 683 (court reviews dismissal de novo; construe pleadings for plaintiff)
- Bonner v. Peterson, 301 Ga. App. 443 (party asserting waiver of sovereign immunity bears burden)
- Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga. v. Ruff, 315 Ga. App. 452 (Board of Regents is state agency entitled to sovereign immunity)
- Lewis v. Dept. of Human Resources, 255 Ga. App. 805 (GTCA waives immunity only for employees acting within scope; state immune for third-party torts)
- Hall County School Dist. v. C. Robert Beals & Assoc., Inc., 231 Ga. App. 492 (government need not investigate facially proper payment bonds)
- Pak v. Ga. Dept. of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities, 317 Ga. App. 486 (sovereign immunity is a strict constitutional doctrine)
- Dept. of Human Resources v. Hutchinson, 217 Ga. App. 70 (state immune where third party, not state action, caused injury)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga. App. 668 (jurisdictional factfinding on sovereign immunity motions may use the any-evidence rule)