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; the officer’s preexisting shoulder surgery was aggravated and the City paid about $63,418 in workers’ compensation for the injury.
The County had a retained-limits commercial liability policy: $250,000 retained limit (borne by County) and $4,750,000 insurer 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 expense, alleging the County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-916.
The County asserted immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, arguing the claim arose from an intentional tort (battery), which is excluded from the Act’s waiver in § 13-910(7); it also argued its policy did not create a waiver for the claimed loss.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County, holding the claim arose from a battery (an intentional tort) and that the County did not waive immunity because coverage would exist only above the $250,000 retained limit; the City appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the claim arise from a battery (intentional tort) such that the Act’s intentional-tort exception bars suit?	City: The touching was not properly characterized as a battery (attempted in supplemental brief).	County: The contact was intentional and thus a battery, placing claim within § 13-910(7) exception.	Court: The record shows intentional contact; claim arose from a battery and is barred by the Act unless immunity was otherwise waived.
Did procurement of liability insurance under § 13-916 waive the County’s sovereign immunity for this claim?	City: Purchasing liability insurance waives immunity; retained-limit structure should not preclude waiver for smaller claims.	County: Policy only indemnifies amounts above the $250,000 retained limit and defines coverage as for accidental occurrences, so no coverage (and thus no waiver) for an intentional battery.	Court: Policy requires an "occurrence" (accidental event); battery is intentional and not an "occurrence," so the policy did not provide coverage and § 13-916 did not effect a waiver for this claim.

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (tort-claims Act intentional-tort analysis)
Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (insurance-policy interpretation principles)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (battery characterized as intentional tort)
Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (intentional acts are not accidents)
Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (accident analysis explained)
Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 295 Neb. 785 (appellate courts avoid unnecessary analysis)