City of Malvern v. Jenkins
2013 Ark. 24
| Ark. | 2013Background
- City of Malvern erected a sewer line across Jenkinses’ property, allegedly damaging a drainage culvert and causing three washouts.
- Jenkinses sought damages for property repair, loss of value, condemnation-related damages, and legal fees.
- City moved for summary judgment on immunity under Ark. Code Ann. §21-9-301(a) and contested negligence and inverse-condemnation theories.
- Circuit court found disputed facts regarding an easement and contract obligations, and held immunity did not bar the contract-related considerations; later denied summary judgment and entered a draft order.
- City timely appealed alleging mischaracterization of the claim as contract-based and seeking immunity; this Court constrained review to the immunity issue.
- Majority holds the Jenkinses’ claims arise in tort, but the City is entitled to immunity because it showed no insurance coverage to defend the tort claim, reversing and remanding for proceedings consistent with immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jenkinses’ claim sounds in contract or tort. | Jenkinses rely on tort (negligence from culvert damage). | City argues mischaracterization as contract; still barred by immunity. | Claim treated as tort; immunity applies if no insurance coverage. |
| Whether the City is entitled to statutory immunity given lack of insurance. | Immunity should not bar tort claims if there is insured obligation. | Evidence shows no insurance coverage; immunity applies. | City entitled to immunity as no insurance coverage for tort claim. |
| Whether inverse-condemnation claim and timing are proper under immunity. | Inverse condemnation falls within takings; timing not fatal. | Statute of limitations and contract issues preclude improper claims. | Invoked immunity; inverse-condemnation acknowledged but not precluded by immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fayetteville v. Romine, 373 Ark. 318 (2008) (immunity question is a matter of law reviewed de novo)
- City of Farmington v. Smith, 366 Ark. 473 (2006) (summary judgment standard; immunity analysis on demarcated facts)
- Bankston v. Pulaski Cnty. Sch. Dist., 281 Ark. 476 (1984) (contract vs tort distinction; damages indicate tort)
- L.L. Cole & Son, Inc. v. Hickman, 282 Ark. 6 (1984) (distinguishes misfeasance in contract from tort)
- Westark Specialties Inc. v. Stouffer Family Ltd., 310 Ark. 225 (1992) (landlord deficiency in maintenance as tort-like under foreseeability)
- Robinson v. City of Ash-down, 301 Ark. 226 (1990) (inverse condemnation principles referenced)
- Arkansas Lottery Comm’n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. 23 (2012) (dissent cites as not controlling here; appellate rules guidance)