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 about $63,418 in workers’ compensation benefits.
The County had a retained-limits liability policy: retained limit $250,000 per occurrence; insurer obligated to indemnify damages and claim expenses in excess of that retained limit.
The City sued the County seeking reimbursement for the workers’ compensation payments.
The County asserted sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (the Act), and that the Act’s intentional-torts exception (including battery) barred the claim; it also relied on the policy language.
The district court granted summary judgment to the County, finding the claim arose from a battery (excepted from the Act) and that the County’s insurance did not waive immunity for claims below the retained limit.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds: because the policy covered only "occurrences" defined as accidental happenings and a battery is intentional, the policy did not provide coverage and thus did not effect a 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	The contact was accidental/covered and thus within Act’s waiver	The contact was an intentional battery, so excluded by § 13-910	Court: The touching was intentional (battery); the Act’s exception applies — County immune absent waiver
Whether County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under § 13-916	Procurement of liability insurance waived immunity for this claim; retained-limit argument insufficient	Policy insures only occurrences and obligates insurer only above retained limit; here no coverage because injury from intentional act	Court: No waiver because policy does not cover battery (not an "occurrence"); therefore no coverage and no waiver
Whether a battery qualifies as an "occurrence" or "accident" under the policy	City: policy language or retained-limit application should still operate to waive immunity	County: battery is intentional and not an accidental "occurrence"; policy excludes it	Court: Intentional acts are not accidents; battery is not an "occurrence" — no coverage
Whether court should decide retained-limit/waiver scope for other policies	City urged resolution for efficiency	County: outcome controlled by policy language here; no need for broader rule	Court: Declined to issue broad rule; waiver depends on specific policy language

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (interpreting Act's scope and exceptions)
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)