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

A Lancaster County deputy intentionally touched a Lincoln police officer (described as a pat/punch); the officer, unknown to the deputy, had recent shoulder surgery and was injured.
The City of Lincoln paid about $63,418 in workers’ compensation for the officer’s injury and sued the County for reimbursement.
At the time, the County had a retained-limits liability insurance policy: $250,000 retained limit (borne by County) and $4,750,000 limits of insurance above the retention.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding (1) the City’s claim arose from an intentional tort (battery) and fell within the Act’s intentional-torts exception, and (2) the County’s insurance procurement did not waive sovereign immunity for this claim because the policy obligates the insurer to pay only amounts in excess of the retained limit.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, but on different grounds: it held the policy’s insuring agreement covered only accidental “occurrences,” and an intentional battery is not an occurrence, so there was no coverage and thus no waiver of sovereign immunity under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-916.

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 specifically contest battery characterization below; later argued it was not battery	County: touching was intentional → battery → excluded from Act waiver	Court: claim arose from battery; intentional-torts exception applies
Whether County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under § 13-916	City: procurement of liability insurance waived immunity for the claim (regardless of retention)	County: policy covers only occurrences and obligates insurer to pay only amounts above retained limit; no waiver for this claim	Court: no waiver because the policy covered only accidental “occurrences,” and an intentional battery is not an occurrence
Whether a claim falling within the county’s retained/self-insured limit would nonetheless waive immunity	City requested ruling on retained-limit waiver as a broader question	County argued retained limit means County bears amounts below retention; waiver applies only as stated in policy	Court declined to decide generally; resolution depends on specific policy language and was unnecessary here
Whether appellate court should reach new arguments raised in supplemental brief	City raised battery-challenge in supplemental brief	County opposed considering new argument	Court declined to consider new argument as properly preserved but found no plain error in lower court’s battery finding

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133, 864 N.W.2d 399 (2015) (statutory interpretation and waiver under the Act)
Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386, 883 N.W.2d 60 (2016) (insurance policy interpretation—coverage requires claim fall within insuring agreement)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374, 803 N.W.2d 508 (2011) (battery as intentional tort; intentional acts are not accidents)
Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697, 625 N.W.2d 213 (2001) (intentional acts and accident/occurrence analysis)