City of Lincoln v. County of Lancaster
297 Neb. 256
| Neb. | 2017Background
- A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact with a City of Lincoln police officer, aggravating a recent shoulder surgery; the City paid about $63,418 in workers’ compensation for the injury.
- The County had a retained-limits liability policy: $250,000 retained limit per occurrence and $4,750,000 policy limit; the insurer only paid amounts in excess of the retained limit.
- The City sued the County seeking reimbursement for the worker’s comp expenses, arguing the County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-916.
- The County defended on multiple grounds, including sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act and that the Act’s intentional-torts exception (battery) barred the claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the County, holding the claim arose from a battery (an intentional tort) and that the County had not waived immunity because the policy obligated the insurer to pay only amounts above the retained limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim falls within the Act or is barred by the intentional-torts exception | The contact was not a battery for purposes of the Act; claim should be covered | The touching was intentional—a battery—so the Act’s intentional-torts exception bars the suit | Court: Contact was intentional and constituted a battery; claim is barred by the Act’s intentional-torts exception |
| Whether the County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under § 13-916 | County’s purchase of liability insurance waived immunity for this claim, regardless of retained limit | No waiver: policy covers only "occurrences" and insurer pays only amounts above retained limit; intentional acts are not "occurrences" | Court: No coverage because battery is not an "occurrence" (accidental); therefore no waiver of immunity under the policy |
| Whether an intentional battery can be an "occurrence" under the policy’s insuring agreement | Insurance should cover bodily injury even if unexpected consequences occurred | Policy defines "occurrence" as accidental; intentional acts cannot be accidents | Court: Intentional acts by definition are not accidents; battery is not an "occurrence," so policy provides no coverage |
| Whether courts should decide waiver issues tied to retained limits when coverage issue is dispositive | City asked court to address retained-limit waiver issue for efficiency | County contended no waiver because no coverage exists; retained-limit issue is unnecessary | Court: Declined to decide retained-limit waiver question because no coverage exists under the policy; resolved case on coverage ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2015) (interpreting statutory waiver and Act exceptions)
- Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (Neb. 2016) (insurance-policy interpretation principle)
- Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2011) (defining battery and intentional-tort concepts)
- Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (Neb. 2001) (intentional acts are not accidents for coverage)
- Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (Neb. 1997) (accident/intent analysis for injuries)
- Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 295 Neb. 785 (Neb. 2017) (appellate courts need not reach unnecessary issues)