City of Lincoln v. County of Lancaster, 297 Neb. 256

A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact with a City of Lincoln police officer, injuring the officer’s shoulder; the City paid ~$63,418 in workers’ compensation for the injury.
The County had a retained-limits liability policy: $250,000 retained limit per occurrence, $4,750,000 policy limit; insurer obligated to indemnify only for amounts in excess of the retained limit.
The City sued the County seeking reimbursement of the workers’ compensation expenses.
The County raised sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (the Act) and argued the intentional-tort (battery) exception applied; it also argued it had not waived immunity by purchasing insurance.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County, finding the claim arose from a battery (an intentional tort barred by the Act) and that the County’s insurance procurement did not waive immunity for claims below the $250,000 retained limit.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, but on the alternative ground that the policy’s insuring agreement required an "occurrence" (an accidental event), and a battery is intentional and thus not covered — so there was no policy coverage and therefore no waiver of immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City’s claim arises from a battery (intentional tort)	The City did not contest the factual characterization on appeal (argued later but improperly)	The contact was intentional and thus a battery, exempting the County from the Act’s waiver	Court held the claim arose from a battery; intentional-tort exception applies
Whether the County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under § 13-916	City: procurement of liability insurance waived immunity for this claim	County: policy required an "occurrence" (accident) and excluded intentional acts; no coverage, so no waiver	Held: no coverage because battery is intentional and not an "occurrence," so no waiver of immunity
Whether a claim within the County’s retained/self-insured limit would be covered/waive immunity	City: waiver could be limited by retained limit, so claim might fall within waiver	County: retained limit means insurer pays only above retention; if claim under retention, immunity persists	Court declined to decide generally; unnecessary because no coverage existed for intentional battery
Whether the policy’s "personal injury" insuring grant covers battery	City suggested alternative coverage arguments	County pointed to the policy’s definitional limits excluding battery from "personal injury" offenses listed	Held: "personal injury" definition did not include battery; no coverage under that grant

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2015) (interpreting Act’s scope)
Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (Neb. 2016) (insurance policy interpretation principles)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2011) (battery as intentional tort)
Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (Neb. 2001) (intentional acts are not accidents for coverage)
Blaser v. County of Madison, 288 Neb. 306 (Neb. 2014) (§ 13-916 insurance waiver framework)
State of Florida v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency, 294 Neb. 400 (Neb. 2016) (assignment/briefing requirements on appeal)
Linscott v. Shasteen, 288 Neb. 276 (Neb. 2014) (procedural rules on supplemental/reply briefing)
Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (Neb. 1997) (discussion distinguishing accidents from intentional acts)
Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 295 Neb. 785 (Neb. 2017) (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary questions)