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

A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact with a Lincoln police officer, aggravating the officer’s recently operated shoulder; the City paid ~$63,418 in workers’ compensation on the officer’s behalf.
The County maintained a retained-limits liability policy: $250,000 retained limit per occurrence with $4,750,000 excess limits; the insurer indemnified only amounts in excess of the retained limit.
The City sued the County to recover the paid amounts, 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’s intentional torts exception (battery) and argued the policy did not provide coverage for intentional acts.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County, finding the claim arose from a battery (excluded by the Act) and that the policy’s retained limit meant no waiver for amounts below $250,000.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed for a different reason: the policy’s insuring agreement required an “occurrence” (an accidental happening), and an intentional battery is not an “occurrence,” so the policy provided no coverage and thus no waiver of immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City’s claim is barred by the Act’s intentional torts exception	City did not contest that touching was intentional in opening brief; later argued it was not a battery	County: contact was intentional battery, excluded from Act’s waiver	Court: Claim arose from a battery; intentional contact is not accidental — barred by exception
Whether purchase of liability insurance under §13-916 waived County’s sovereign immunity	City: procurement of liability insurance waived immunity for this claim	County: policy does not cover intentional acts; retained-limit structure means no waiver for this amount	Court: Policy covers only "occurrences" (accidents); battery not an occurrence, so policy provided no coverage and no waiver
Whether a retained/self-insured limit affects waiver for claims within that limit	City: waiver applies even if claim falls within retained limit (district court framed issue this way)	County: retained limit means insurer not obligated to pay below limit; no waiver for amounts under retained limit	Court: Declined to decide as unnecessary; refusal to issue blanket rule — waiver depends on policy language
Whether appellate court should consider City’s supplemental argument that touching was not a battery	City raised challenge in supplemental brief	County: failure to assign/argue in opening brief forfeits issue	Court: Supplemental argument improper; no plain error found; issue not preserved

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2015) (discusses intentional torts exception under Act)
Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (Neb. 2016) (insurance policy interpretation is a question of law)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2011) (battery is a harmful intentional contact)
Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (Neb. 2001) (intentional acts are not accidents)
Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (Neb. 1997) (accident analysis where voluntary acts cause unintended injury)
Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 295 Neb. 785 (Neb. 2017) (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
Blaser v. County of Madison, 288 Neb. 306 (Neb. 2014) (§13-916 permits waiver of immunity via procurement of liability insurance)
State of Florida v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency, 294 Neb. 400 (Neb. 2016) (appellate preservation rules)
Linscott v. Shasteen, 288 Neb. 276 (Neb. 2014) (limitations on raising new issues in reply/supplemental briefs)