City of Lincoln v. County of Lancaster
297 Neb. 256
| Neb. | 2017Background
- A Lancaster County deputy intentionally made physical contact with a Lincoln police officer, aggravating a preexisting shoulder injury; the City paid about $63,418 in workers’ compensation for that injury.
- The County carried a liability policy with a $250,000 retained limit (self-insured retention) and $4,750,000 limits above that; the policy obligated the insurer to indemnify damages and claim expenses in excess of the retained limit for claims arising out of an “occurrence.”
- The City sued the County seeking reimbursement for the workers’ compensation payments, alleging the County waived sovereign immunity by buying liability insurance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-916.
- The County asserted the suit was barred by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s intentional torts exception (battery) and that insurance did not waive immunity for the claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the County, concluding the claim arose from a battery (an intentional tort excluded from the Act) and that insurance did not waive immunity for claims below the retained limit.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on a different ground: because the policy only covered claims arising from an “occurrence” (defined as an accidental happening), an intentional battery was not covered, so the County’s purchase of the policy did not waive sovereign immunity for this claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City’s claim arises from an intentional tort (battery) | The touching should not be treated as a battery that bars the claim under the Act | The deputy’s contact was intentional and thus a battery excluded from the Act’s waiver | Court held the contact was intentional; claim arises from battery and is within the intentional-tort exception |
| Whether County waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance under § 13-916 | Insurance procurement waived immunity and therefore County must reimburse the City for payments made on officer’s behalf | No waiver because the policy’s insuring agreement covers only "occurrences" (accidents), not intentional acts; thus no coverage and no waiver | Court held no waiver: battery is not an "occurrence" under the policy, so policy did not provide coverage and § 13-916 waiver did not apply |
| Whether a retained limit/self-insured retention affects waiver for smaller claims | City argued waiver may depend on retained limit coverage | County argued retained limit means it bears uninsured amount, so no waiver for claims below retained limit | Court declined to decide generally; unnecessary because there was no coverage at all for intentional battery in this policy |
| Whether appellate court should reach retained-limit question sua sponte | City requested ruling for judicial efficiency | County opposed; argued no need because coverage lacking | Court declined to make a broader ruling; left retained-limit questions to be decided based on specific policy language when presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2015) (interpretation of Act’s exceptions)
- Drake-Williams Steel v. Continental Cas. Co., 294 Neb. 386 (Neb. 2016) (insurance policy interpretation principles)
- Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2011) (battery as an intentional tort and effect on Act)
- Austin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 697 (Neb. 2001) (intentional acts are not accidents under policy language)
- Farr v. Designer Phosphate & Premix Internat., 253 Neb. 201 (Neb. 1997) (distinguishing accidents from intentional acts)