City of Lincoln v. County of Lancaster
297 Neb. 256
| Neb. | 2017Background
- A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact (described between a light open-palm touch and a closed-fist punch) with a City of Lincoln police officer who later suffered a shoulder injury requiring surgery. The City paid about $63,418 in workers’ compensation benefits for that injury.
- The County had a retained-limits liability policy: retained limit $250,000 (borne by County), insurer obligation only for amounts in excess of the retained limit, policy limit $4,750,000.
- The City sued the County to recover the amounts it paid for its employee’s injury. The County asserted immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (the Act) and argued the Act’s intentional torts exception (battery) barred the claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the County, holding (1) the claim arose from a battery and thus fell within the Act’s intentional-torts exception, and (2) the County’s liability insurance did not waive immunity because the policy only obligated the insurer for amounts above the $250,000 retained limit.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed but on different reasoning: because the policy’s insuring agreement required an accidental “occurrence,” and a battery is an intentional act (not an “accident” or “occurrence”), the policy provided no coverage for the battery claim and thus could not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-916.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County is immune for the City’s claim under the Act | City: Claim is for negligence and County waived immunity by buying liability insurance | County: Claim arises from a battery (intentional tort) and is excepted from Act’s waiver; no waiver via insurance | Held: Claim arose from a battery; battery falls within Act’s intentional-torts exception, so immunity applies unless waived by insurance |
| Whether the County’s purchase of liability insurance waived sovereign immunity for this claim | City: §13‑916 allows waiver to extent stated in policy; County’s purchase waived immunity for amounts within retained limit | County: Policy only covers damages in excess of retained limit and, in any event, policy does not cover intentional acts | Held: Policy’s insuring agreement covers only claims from an “occurrence” defined as accidental; intentional battery is not an “occurrence,” so policy provided no coverage and did not waive immunity |
| Whether a battery can be an “occurrence”/“accident” under the insurance policy | City: (argued later) touching may have been accidental or not a battery | County: Intentional contact cannot be an accident; thus no coverage | Held: As a matter of law intentional acts (battery) are not accidents; no occurrence, no coverage |
| Whether court should decide waiver-by-retained-limit question generally | City: asks court to rule on retained-limit waiver point for efficiency | County: resists broad pronouncement; outcomes depend on specific policy language | Held: Court declines to decide generally; resolution depends on policy language and facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (discusses Act exceptions and intentional torts)
- Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (insurance-policy interpretation principles)
- Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (battery defined as intentional harmful contact)
- Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (intentional acts not accidents for insurance coverage)
- Blaser v. County of Madison, 288 Neb. 306 (statutory waiver-by-insurance under §13-916)