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

A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact with a Lincoln police officer, injuring the officer’s shoulder (post-surgery) and prompting the City to pay ~$63,418 in workers’ compensation.
The County had a retained-limits liability policy: $250,000 retained limit per occurrence and $4,750,000 policy limit; insurer pays only amounts in excess of the retained limit.
The City sued the County seeking reimbursement; the County asserted sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (the Act) and that the Act’s intentional-torts exception (battery) applied.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County, holding (1) the claim arose from a battery and was barred by the Act’s intentional-torts exception, and (2) the County’s purchase of liability insurance did not waive immunity for claims under the retained limit.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed but on a different ground: the County’s policy covered only “occurrences” (accidental happenings), and an intentional battery is not an “occurrence,” so the policy provided no coverage and thus could not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claim is barred by the Act’s intentional-torts exception	The contact was not a battery (implied: or not enough to invoke the exception)	The contact was intentional and therefore a battery exempting the claim from the Act	Held: The contact was intentional and the claim arose from a battery; intentional-torts exception applies
Whether County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under § 13-916	Insurance purchase waived immunity for the City’s claim despite retained limit	Policy covers only occurrences; intentional battery is not covered, so no waiver	Held: No waiver — policy covers only accidental "occurrences" and battery is intentional, so insurance did not cover the claim
Whether a retained/self-insured limit prevents waiver for amounts below that retention	City argued waiver should apply regardless (or did not contest below)	County argued retained limit preserves immunity for amounts under retention	Not decided as a controlling issue — unnecessary to resolve because policy provided no coverage for battery
Proper standard of review for policy interpretation and summary judgment	N/A (procedural)	N/A (procedural)	Held: De novo review applies to statutory and insurance-policy interpretation; summary judgment standard affirmed

Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (discusses intentional-torts immunity under the Act)
Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (principles for construing insurance policy language)
Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (battery as an intentional tort; exclusion from "occurrence")
Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (intentional acts are not accidents for coverage purposes)
Blaser v. County of Madison, 288 Neb. 306 (§ 13-916 effect — waiver tied to policy terms)
Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (discussion distinguishing accidents from intentional conduct)
Anderson v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 295 Neb. 785 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)