sign in sign up
<<
Home , Executive officer, Property damage, Qualified immunity

MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Hartford, WI ❖ New Orleans, LA ❖ Orange County, CA ❖ Austin, TX ❖ Jacksonville, FL Phone: (800) 637-9176 gwickert@mwl-.com www.mwl-law.com

STATE AND LIABILITY IN ALL 50 STATES

Sovereign or governmental immunity concern themselves with the various legal doctrines or that provide federal, state, or local governments immunity from tort-based claims, as well as exceptions to or waivers of that immunity. Generally, a state government is immune from tort suits by individuals under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The terms “sovereign immunity” and “governmental immunity” are frequently conflated, but they are entirely different legal concepts. Sovereign immunity protects the State and its divisions, including agencies, boards, hospitals, and universities; while “governmental immunity” technically only protects political subdivisions of the State including cities, counties, towns, villages, and school districts. Throughout the country, has continually conflated these two terms. For purposes of this chart we refer to both terms interchangeably. Local governments, municipalities, and political subdivisions of the state are immune from tort suits by virtue of governmental immunity, because the state grants them immunity, usually in its . This chart deals with state governmental immunity and liability. It should be noted that against states, their officers, and employees are frequently asserted under federal law, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or other similar statutes. This chart deals only with the separate body of law governing state law tort claims against state governments. It does not cover federal claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C. § 2674), which is the subject of another chart found HERE, or claims of against municipal, county, or local governments, which is the subject of another chart found HERE. Generally The origins of sovereign immunity can be traced back to the notion that the king made the , and thus anything the king did was necessarily legal. The doctrine was thought to pass through to the several states before the founding of this country. When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, Article III raised questions about this principle by exposing states to suits from citizens of other states and foreign states. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 (“The judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies ... between a State and Citizens of another State ... and between a State ... and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects”). In 1793, the U.S. Supreme dealt with precisely this issue in Chisholm v. Georgia and abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity with respect to states. Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) (“the Constitution warrants a suit against a State, by an individual citizen of another State”). Several years later, in response to Chisholm, Congress proposed, and three-fourths of the states ratified, the 11th Amendment, which reinstated states’ sovereign immunity, at least to the extent that Article III encroached upon it. Therefore, there could be no valid suit against a government entity. By the early 1800s, this sovereign immunity was adopted by nearly every state. However, the enjoyment of sovereign immunity is limited to government bodies that are truly “sovereign,” namely the U.S. federal government and each state government. This presumed immunity was based on the belief that governments would be paralyzed if they faced potential liability for all actions of their employees. Sovereign immunity today has been limited or eliminated, at least in part, in most by either legislative or judicial action. Still undecided was the issue of whether a state could be sued by its own citizens. For more than 100 years, states enjoyed protection from lawsuits, and the Supreme Court extended 11th Amendment protections to prohibit suits against a state by one of its citizens. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). However, the doctrine began WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 1 Last Updated 1/5/21 to weaken in 1908 when the Supreme Court ruled that sovereign immunity was not without exceptions and states could be sued for an unconstitutional action by the state. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). In 1946, the federal government passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waived sovereign immunity for itself with respect to . Federal Torts Claims Act, Pub. L. No. 79-601, ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (1946). Soon thereafter, state began to enact their own state tort claims acts. A compromise doctrine subsequently developed at common law, whereby government officers could be held liable for the negligent performance of ministerial functions (operational acts involving carrying out policies), but not for discretionary functions (those involving policy setting and decision making). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895D (1965). Immunity from liability for discretionary acts developed as an extension of the immunity afforded judicial officers to similarly shield legislative and administrative officials. The definition and application of the two types of functions evolved over time, causing confusion and uncertainty. Whenever suit was brought against an individual government employee because of his official conduct, the court had to consider the practical effects of liability and make a value between the social and individual benefit from compensation to the victim, together with the wholesome deterrence of official excess on one hand; and on the other, the evils that would flow from inhibiting courageous and independent official action, and deterring responsible citizens from entering public life. Each state evolved differently with regard to its grant of sovereign immunity and the exceptions to immunity it provided. Sovereign immunity today has been limited or eliminated, at least in part, in most jurisdictions by either legislative or judicial action. Today, in many states, Tort Claims Acts waive subrogation legislatively. The state statutes waiving sovereign immunity are generally of three types: (1) absolute waivers; (2) limited waivers applicable only to specific types of claims; and (3) general waivers subject to certain defined exceptions. The first type of statutory scheme simply abolishes state immunity altogether. They usually include a blanket statement of state liability for the torts of governmental entities and employees. The second type of maintains sovereign immunity overall but provides limited waivers of immunity for certain state acts. The third type provides a general waiver of sovereign immunity but lists several specified exceptions. In many jurisdictions, government officials still enjoy immunity from liability in connection with the performance of their discretionary or governmental functions and acts. On the other hand, liability arising out of the negligent performance of a proprietary or by a governmental official is not granted immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity varies from state-to-state but is usually contained either in a statutory framework (such as a Tort Claims Act) or within judicial and case decisions. Excluded from the doctrine are cities and municipalities, which are considered to be mere creatures of the , and which have no inherent power and must exercise delegated power strictly within the limitations prescribed by the state legislature. As such, by default, municipalities are liable for their actions unless shielded by state law. Today, many state tort claims acts are modeled after the FTCA and constitute a statutory general waiver of sovereign immunity allowing tort claims against the state, with certain exceptions, or reenact immunity with limited waivers that apply only to certain types of claims. Some of these acts are called, “Tort Claims Acts,” but many others are given different names. State claims acts (as opposed to tort claims acts) are another type of statute that limit immunity and establish a procedure for bringing claims against a state government. State laws may provide for “discretionary function” exceptions to state liability (a discretionary function exception retains state immunity for essential governmental functions that require the exercise of discretion or judgment, such as planning or policy level decisions). These “discretionary functions” are distinguished from “ministerial” or “operational” functions that involve only the execution of policies and set tasks. State may also employ a “misrepresentation exception” to state liability (a misrepresentation exception means immunity still applies in certain cases of governmental failure to communicate correct information). These acts sometimes establish a special court of claims, board, or commission to determine such claims, and often limit or provide for certain exceptions to liability. , Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Ohio use this approach.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 2 Last Updated 1/5/21 Premises Liability In cases involving premises liability, many states provide immunity or limit liability for premises defects. This is done by establishing a relatively low standard of care owed to those on government property, such as requiring that the government exercise that level of care which a private person would owe a licensee, instead of the “ordinary care” standard that has been adopted by most states for actions between private parties. In addition, some states create different standards of care depending on the type of defect at issue (“special defect” is an unusual danger which is more dangerous than most defects), and whether the injured party paid to use the property.

Operation of Motor Vehicle Many states expressly provide for waiver of immunity for property damage, personal injury, or death caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of a state employee acting within the scope of employment and arising out of the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment. This liability may even be extended to the operation of emergency vehicles, which are permitted to disregard traffic rules and the speed limit, provided it displays its lights and sirens while doing so. Even then, it must exercise “due regard” for the safety of the motoring public. Regrettably, this is not always done with the foreseeable result that innocent third parties at the wrong place at the wrong time are injured. Most states provide for a waiver of sovereign immunity for the negligent operation of governmental vehicles, but the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the emergency vehicle exceeded the liberties given to it under state law by failing to exercise their emergency lights and siren and/or by disregarding the due regard for the safety of the public. Other states, like Alabama, strongly preserve sovereign immunity, even for motor vehicle accidents.

Highway Defect Statutes Enacting highway defect statutes is another specific way of waiving the sovereign immunity of state transportation departments. This approach focuses on the potential liability of a state Department of Transportation, whereas a general waiver of sovereign immunity exposes a state to tort liability on any theory. For example, the highway defect statute established in Connecticut states: “Any person injured in person or property through the neglect or default of the state or any of its employees by means of any defective highway, bridge, or sidewalk which it is the duty of the commissioner of transportation to keep in repair…may bring a civil action.” C.G.S.A. § 13a-144. Since highway defect statutes are different from Tort Claims Acts, it must be determined whether a plaintiff’s claim is associated to a “road defect” statute or arises under the Tort Claims Act. Under a defect statue, the question is whether the claimant’s injuries were actually caused from a defect that arose within the meaning of the statute. In other words, was the highway defect in itself defined to be the cause of liability? However, the focus with a Tort Claims Act is whether the injury was the result of a negligent act by a governmental entity. These differences are what separate a “highway defect statute” from a “Tort Claims Act”.

Notice Requirements State Tort Claims Acts usually require that a certain type of notice be given to the governmental entity within a certain period of time and containing very specific information. Failure to provide sufficient notice can be fatal to an action against a governmental entity and constitute a complete to an action. These statutes usually specify that a plaintiff must provide the governmental entity with notice of the name and address of the plaintiff, date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence or transaction giving rise to the claim asserted, a general description of the injury, damage, or loss incurred, the name of the public entities or employees causing the injury, damage or loss, and the specific amount of damages claimed (i.e., a “sum certain”). Many states require such notice to be submitted on a form that they provide or specify.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 3 Last Updated 1/5/21 Monetary Limits or Caps State law often provides monetary damage limitations of “caps” on the amount of money that can be recovered from a governmental entity. At least 33 states’ Acts limit, or “cap,” the monetary amount for damages that may be recovered from judgments against the state, and at least 29 states (often in combination with a cap) prohibit a judgment against the state from including punitive or exemplary damages. Texas, for example provides a per person limit of $250,000 for claims against the State, a $100,000 limit for claims against local governments, and a $250,000 limit for claims against municipalities. The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, on the other hand, provides for a verbal threshold which states that, “No damages shall be awarded against a public entity or public employee for pain and suffering resulting from any injury; provided, however, that this limitation on the recovery of damages for pain and suffering shall not apply in cases of permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement or dismemberment where the medical treatment expenses are in excess of $ 3,600.” Damage caps are often set between $100,000 and $1 million. Some states, such as Arkansas and California, have no damage caps. At least 33 states’ Acts limit, or “cap,” the monetary amount for damages that may be recovered from judgments against the state, and at least 29 states (often in combination with a cap) prohibit a judgment against the state from including punitive or exemplary damages.

Public Duty Doctrine Separate and apart from the concepts of sovereign immunity and official immunity, some states adopt the Public Duty Doctrine. It can serve as an exception to immunity in the performance of a governmental or discretionary act. The Public Duty Doctrine states that a public employee is not civilly liable for the breach of a duty owed to the general public, rather than a particular individual. This Public Duty Doctrine is based on the absence of a duty to the particular individual, as contrasted to the duty owed to the general public. This doctrine does not insulate a public employee from all liability, as he or she could still be found liable for a breach of ministerial duties in which an injured party had a “special, direct, and distinctive interest.” See, e.g., Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. 2008). It is not an affirmative , but rather delineates the legal duty the defendant public employee owes the plaintiff. In effect, the applicability of the Public Duty Doctrine negates the duty required to prove negligence, such that there can be no for injuries sustained as the result of an alleged breach of public duty to the community as a whole.

Federal Civil Rights Liability (42 U.S.C. § 1983) The Federal Civil Rights Statute is the basis by which a state or local government employee can assert a civil rights claim. Section 1983 provides: Every person who, under of any statute, ordinance, , custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the or other person within the thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in , or other proper proceeding for redress. The most common claims brought under § 1983 are for violation of constitutional rights, including: • First Amendment rights of freedom of religion, speech, and press. • Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures. • Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination. • Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. • Fourteenth Amendment protections against deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 4 Last Updated 1/5/21 “Any citizen” can bring a § 1983 action against any person who, while acting “under color of state law” deprives the plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights and that challenged conduct caused a constitutional violation. The “color of law” element is established where a public employee acts pursuant to his or her office or in his or her official capacity. Jurisdiction Suits against the states must be brought in state court. The 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits private actions brought against states in federal court. It provides: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign State. This Amendment prevents federal from exercising jurisdiction over state defendants. A federal court will not even hear the case if a state is the defendant. A state may not be sued in federal court by its own citizen or a citizen of another state, unless the state to jurisdiction. Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to suits filed against the state in state courts and before federal administrative agencies. Unless the state or the federal government creates an exception to the state’s sovereign immunity, the state is immune from being sued without by any citizen in federal courts, state courts, or before federal administrative agencies. NOTE: This chart concerns itself with the immunity granted to and liability of individual state governments and their employees. Issues regarding the immunity granted to and liability of “political subdivisions” (i.e., local government entities created by the states to help fulfill their obligations, including counties, cities, towns, villages, and special districts such as school districts, water districts, park districts, and airport districts) are addressed in our sister chart entitled “Municipal/County/Local Governmental Immunity and Tort Liability In All 50 States found HERE.”

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 5 Last Updated 1/5/21

TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Individual State employees have qualified immunity (State- Operating a vehicle in scope of employment No Tort Claims Act. agent immunity) and can be is protected. State-agent immunity protects sued for conduct “contrary to State employees when formulating plans, Alabama distinguishes clearly established law” if not between liability of the exercising judgment, or discharging duties acting in good faith. Issue is (including driving a vehicle), unless: State and liability of State whether a reasonable official (1) When the U.S. or Alabama employees in their could have believed his or her or state law require otherwise; or individual capacity (State- actions were lawful in light of (2) Where State agent acts “willfully, agent liability). clearly established law. Ex maliciously, fraudulently, in bad faith, parte Sawyer, 876 So.2d 433 Alabama enjoys strong beyond his or her authority, or under a None (Ala. 2003). sovereign immunity mistaken interpretation of the law.”* The damage caps (known as “State-agent State employees whose Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala.2000); found in Ala. Stat. §§ immunity”). It is almost positions exist by virtue of 11-93-1 to 11-95-3 do invincible. Hutchinson v. Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442 (Ala. ALABAMA None legislative pronouncement get 1987). not apply to actions Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala., “State-agent immunity.” against State. 256 So.2d 281 (Ala. App. * given Peace Officer Immunity under 1971). Claims against State employees § 6-5-338(a) for “discretionary acts.” Two- No punitive damages who serve as constitutional prong test: against the State. It can never be made a officers barred by full State (1) defendant must prove discretionary Ala. Stat. § 6-11-26. defendant in any court. immunity. Ala. Const. Art. I, § 14. (“§ function; and 14”). Burden-shifting process. State (2) burden then shifts to plaintiff to show employee must show that bad faith/malice/willfulness. Alabama immunity is called action was subject to “State immunity”. Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So.2d 300 (Ala. immunity. Then burden shifts 2006). Individual State employee to plaintiff to show exception. immunity is called “State- Ex parte of Reynolds, Liability insurance covering State employees agent immunity.” 946 So.2d (Ala. 2006) (e.g., for wrongful acts is required. Ala. Code § 36- employee on personal errand 1.6.1. at time of accident).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 6 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation)

The doctrine of sovereign A tort claim may not be brought when the immunity allows any person or claim is an action for a tort based upon an corporation having a tort claim act or omission of a State employee in the to bring action against the execution of a statute or regulation or State. Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250. performance or failure to perform a Actions Where State Is a “The legislature shall Damages awarded by discretionary function or duty. Alaska Stat. § Party. establish procedures Failure to remove natural a court for all claims for suits against the accumulation of ice and snow 09.50.250. arising out of a single Alaska Stat. §§ 09.50.250- State.” Article II, § 21 on state highways. State v. Discretionary acts or functions for which injury or death may .300 (1962). of Alaska Constitution. Abbott, 498 P.2d 712 (Alaska State has immunity from tort liability are not exceed $400,000. ALASKA Abolished sovereign Claims against peace 1972). only those acts or functions occurring at Alaska Stat. § immunity and made State officers shall be made Operating motor vehicle. planning level, as opposed to operational 09.17.010. liable for its torts, with within two years after Rutherford v. State, 605 P.2d 16 level; planning decision is one that involves No punitive damages limited exceptions, the cause of action. (Alaska 1979). policy formation, whereas operational against the State. including discretionary Alaska Stat. § decision involves policy execution or Alaska Stat. § functions. Failure to provide sign warning 09.10.070. bicyclists of hazardous railroad implementation. State, Dep’t of Transp. & 09.50.280. crossing. Guerrero ex rel. Pub. Facilities v. Sanders, 944 P.2d 453 Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. (Alaska 1997). Corp., 123 P.3d 966 (Alaska See Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 for other 2005). exceptions.

All actions against A public entity is not liable for If absent proof of a public employee’s gross None public entities or losses that arise out of an act Actions Against Public negligence or intent to cause injury, public public employees shall or omission determined to be a No law shall limit the Entities or Public entities have qualified immunity for: be brought within one criminal by a public amount of damages Employees Act. year after the cause of employee unless the public (1) The failure to make an arrest or to retain to be recovered for Public entities are granted action. A.R.S. § 12- entity knew of the employee’s an arrested person; causing the death or ARIZONA for the 821. propensity for that action. (2) An injury to the driver of a vehicle that is injury of any person. exercise of a judicial, caused by a violation by another driver; and Ariz. Const. Art. II, § Claims against the This subsection does not apply legislative, or discretionary (3) Preventing the sale of a handgun to a 31. State shall be filled to acts or omissions arising out function. A.R.S. § 12- person who may lawfully possess a handgun, within 180 days after of the operation or use of a No punitive damages 820.01 (1984). etc. the action occurs. motor vehicle. A.R.S. § 12- against the State. A.R.S. § 12-821.01. 820.05. See A.R.S. § 12-820.02 for other exceptions. A.R.S. § 12-820.04.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 7 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) The State’s sovereign immunity is waived when: No Tort Claims Act. (1) the State is the moving Arkansas shall never be party seeking relief; Few exceptions to immunity granted by made a defendant in any Claim must be filed (2) an act of the legislature Arkansas’ Constitution. of her courts. (applies only with the Director of creates a specific waiver of State officials are not immune to the extent to state). Ark. Const. Art. V, the Arkansas State immunity; and that they are covered by liability insurance. Claims Commission (3) where a State agency’s None § 20. A.C.A. § 19-10-305. within the period actions are illegal, or when a No punitive damages ARKANSAS The Arkansas State Claims allowed by law for the public employee refuses to do Arkansas requires all political subdivisions to against the State. Commission shall have same type of claim a ministerial act required by carry the minimum amounts of motor A.C.A. § 21-9-203. exclusive jurisdiction over against a private statute. vehicle liability coverage. Therefore, in the all claims against the State person. A.C.A. § 19-10- State Office of Child Support case of a car accident, all political of Arkansas and its several 209. Enf’t v. Mitchell, 954 S.W.2d subdivisions may be held liable up to the agencies. A.C.A. § 19-10- 907 (1997); Travelers Cas. & minimum limits. A.C.A. § 21-9-303. 204. Sur. Co. of Am. v. Arkansas State Highway Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 50 (2003).

California Tort Claims Act. Personal injury/ property claim within A public entity (e.g., state) is Except as otherwise six months after liable for injuries proximately provided by statute, public accrual of the cause of caused by their employee’s A public employee is not liable for an injury entities are not liable for action. All other claims acts or omissions except when resulting from his act or omission where the an injury, arising from an shall be presented that employee is immune from act or omission was the result of a act or omission of the within one year. Cal. liability. Cal. Gov’t Code § discretionary act. Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2. public entity or their 815.2. None Gov’t Code § 911.2. Public entities are not liable for injuries employee. Cal. Gov’t Code A public entity is liable for No punitive damages CALIFORNIA § 815. State Board of Control caused by misrepresentation. Cal. Gov’t Gov’t Claims Branch, death or injury proximately Code § 818.8. against the State. Cal. Numerous immunities P.O. Box 3035 caused by a negligent or Gov’t Code § 818. Public entities are not liable for an injury provided. Cal. Gov’t Code Sacramento, CA wrongful act or omission in the caused by adopting or failing to adopt an §§ 815 - 996.6 (1963). 95812-3035. operation of any motor vehicle Public employee liable for by a public employee acting enactment or by failing to enforce any law. Board must respond within the scope of his Cal. Gov’t Code § 818.2. injury to the same extent within 45 days. Then as a private person. Cal. employment. Cal. Veh. Code § six (6) months to file 17001. Gov’t Code § 815. suit

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 8 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Claims against the Immunity is waived for claims resulting from: State shall be filed Governmental within 182 days of the (1) The operation of a vehicle owned by a The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. injury. C.R.S. § 24-10- public entity used in the scope of $350,000 Per Person Immunity Act generally bars employment, except emergency vehicles; C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101 109. $900,000 per action against the State and (2) The operation of public hospital, through 24-10-120. occurrence, with no File with Atty General. public entities for tort claims. correctional facility, or jail; A public entity is immune Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 one person receiving COLORADO File suit after denial or (3) The dangerous condition of public from liability in all tort (Colo. 2001). more than $350,000. 90 days has passed. housing; claims for injury except as No punitive damages C.R.S. § 24-10-109(6). A public entity, by resolution, (4) The dangerous condition of a public otherwise provided. against the State. may waive immunity. C.R.S. § roadway; and Use Statute of C.R.S. § 24-10-114. C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101 – 120 24-10-104. (5) The operation and maintenance of public (1971). Limitations for that facilities. type of action. C.R.S. § C.R.S. § 24-10-106. 24-10-109(5).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 9 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Claims against the There are certain claims which may be State shall be Connecticut’s doctrine of brought directly against the State: presented within one sovereign immunity does not (1) Any person injured through the year after it accrues. allow the State to be sued negligence of any State official or employee C.G.S.A. § 4-148. without its consent. when operating a motor vehicle owned and General Assembly The Claims Commissioner was insured by the State shall have a claim may, through special created to process claims and against the State. C.G.S.A. § 52-556 (not act, authorize a person grant consent for claims against subrogation claims); to present a claim the State. C.G.S.A. §§ 4-142 and (2) Claims for the periodic payment of 4-160. disability, pension, retirement or other Claims Against The State. after one year if: employment benefits; (1) just and equitable; Commissioner can approve the No State officer or (3) Claims upon which suit otherwise is and immediate payment of “just employee shall be authorized by law (injured by defective (2) express finding of claims” not exceeding $7,500. personally liable for bridge/road. C.G.S.A. § 13a-144) (not compelling equitable “Just claims” are those that in damage or injury, not subrogation claims); and CONNECTICUT circumstances that equity and the State None wanton, reckless or (4) Claims for which an administrative would serve a public should pay, as long as it caused malicious, caused within hearing procedure otherwise is established purpose. the damage or injury. C.G.S.A. the scope of his or her by law. §§ 4-141, 158. employment or duties. Claims for injuries NOTE: Subrogation claims under C.G.S.A. § C.G.S.A. § 4-165 (1959). resulting from Suits can be brought against defective highways, state for defective or poorly 52-556 and § 13a-144 may not be brought sidewalks, roads, or maintained highways, bridges, by subrogated carrier because they are not a bridges must be and sidewalks. Not limited to “person”. brought within two (2) roads within the state highway Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Colon, 2016 WL years and notice system, but no liability for 3391622 (Conn. Super. 2016). within ninety (90) sidewalks maintained by a days. Inaccuracy in municipality. Government must notice will preclude have actual or constructive recovery. C.G.S.A. §§ notice. C.G.S.A. § 13a-144. 13a-149, 13a-144.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 10 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Delaware Tort Claims Act. No claim shall arise against the State, public officer/ employee if the act/ Bringing a tort claim against the Sovereign Immunity is waived where omission: State requires a party to prove insurance coverage exists by statute. Del. (1) arose out of an official that the action is not precluded Code tit. 18, § 6511. duty requiring discretion; by the State Tort Claims Act or DELAWARE None Where a State officer/employee is negligent None (2) was done in good faith the doctrine of sovereign in performing routine functions, they may be and for the best interest of immunity. Marvel v. Prison held personally liable. This includes motor the State; and Indus., 884 A.2d 1065 (Del. vehicle accidents. Simon v. Heald, 359 A.2d (3) was done without gross Super. 2005). 666 (Del. Super. 1976). negligence. Del. Code tit. 10, § 4001- 4005 (1978).

An action for unliquidated damages D.C. shall not be immune for a claim resulting from a State Claims Against District. to person or property A discretionary governmental function of must be made by hand employee acting within their D.C. is immune from suit. The test to The Mayor of the District delivery or U.S. mail scope of employment determine if an action is discretionary is DISTRICT OF of Columbia is empowered within six months in negligently operates a motor whether that function poses a threat to the None COLUMBIA to settle, in his discretion, writing to the Mayor, vehicle. D.C. Code Ann. § 2-412. quality and efficiency of government if claims against D.C. D.C. stating the time, place, Pothole accidents, fallen trees, liability is imposed on the negligent act or Code Ann. § 2-401 through cause, and damage caused by D.C. omission. Shifrin v. Wilson, 412 F. Supp. 1282 § 2-416 (1929). circumstances of the government, its property, or its (D.D.C. 1976). injury or damage. D.C. employees. Code Ann. § 12-309.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 11 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation)

An action may not be The State shall not be Florida’s Sovereign Public duty exception. A governmental entity brought against the liable to pay a claim Immunity Statute. is not liable for a tort caused by the State or one of its to any one person Government entities may agencies unless breaching of a duty owed to the public at large. Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 98 F. which exceeds the be liable for damages claimant presents the Operational functions, such as sum of $200,000 or resulting from negligent or negligently driving a motor Supp.2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2000) aff’d in part, claim within three th $300,000 for any wrongful action of public years after such claim vehicle, are not covered within rev’d in part, 260 F.3d 1260 (11 Cir. 2001). FLORIDA claim arising out of employees in the scope of accrues. the discretionary act exception. Discretionary Function Exception. A the same incident or their employment if a Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732 For wrongful death governmental agency is immune from tort occurrence. F.S.A. § private person would be (Fla. 1989). claim, it must be liability based upon actions that involve 768.28 (5). liable in similar presented within two discretionary functions. Cook ex rel. Estate of No punitive damages circumstances. F.S.A. § years. Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla., 402 against the State. 768.28(1) (1973). F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005). F.S.A. § 768.28 (6)(a). F.S.A. § 768.28 (5). Except as provided, Georgia does not waive immunity for losses Georgia Tort Claims Act. Georgia is not liable arising from: Sovereign immunity is The State is subject to liability for damages waived for torts of State for its employee’s negligence (1) an act or omission by a State employee exceeding $1 million officers and employees Written notice of a when operating a motor exercising due care in the execution of a for single occurrence while acting within the claim shall be given vehicle if the damage was not statute, regulation, or rule; and the State’s scope of their employment within twelve (12) (2) the exercise or the failure to exercise a GEORGIA caused from a method of liability per and shall be liable for such months of the date providing police protection. discretionary function; occurrence shall not torts in the same manner the loss. O.C.G.A. § 50- (3) the collection of any tax; Georgia Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. exceed $3 million. as a private individual 21-26. (4) legislative or judicial action; and Davis, 285 Ga. 203, 676 S.E.2d O.C.G.A. § 50-21-29. would be liable under like (5) methods of providing . 1 (2009). No punitive damages circumstances. O.C.G.A. §§ See O.C.G.A. § 50-21-24 for other against the State. 50-21-20, 50-21-37 (1992). exceptions. O.C.G.A. § 50-21-30.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 12 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) As a no-fault state, no claim arises against a liable State Non-economic Hawaii State Tort Liability employee for negligently Hawaii does not waive immunity for any damages are capped Act. Claim for damage or operating a motor vehicle until injury must be claim arising from: at $375,000. Haw. Haw. Stat. § 662-2 (1957). the accident is deemed to be Stat. § 663-8.7. presented to the State “serious” (medical expenses (1) An act or omission in the execution of a Immunity waived for State within two (2) years of over $5,000, use of body part statute or a discretionary duty; No punitive damages employees to the same when claim accrues. permanent, in death). Property (2) Any claim arising in the collection of any against the State. HAWAII extent as private Haw. Stat. § 662-4. claims allowed. Haw. Stat. § tax; and Haw. Stat. § 662-2. individuals under similar Medical tort claims 431:10C-306; Savini v. Univ. of (3) Any claim arising out of , , circumstances (“Private Any judgment over $1 shall be presented Hawaii, 113 Haw. 459, 153 P.3d . Analog”) unless exception. million against State within six (6) years. 1144 (2007). See Haw. Stat. § 662-15 for other may be paid over five Cootey v. Sun Inv., Inc., 718 Haw. Stat. § 657-7.3. exceptions. years. Haw. Stat. § P.2d 1086 (Haw. 1986). Immunity also waived to extent of insurance. Haw. Stat. § 657-24. 661.11. Idaho shall not be liable for damages Idaho Tort Claims Act. Idaho and its employees while acting within from a single Every governmental entity Tort claims against the A governmental entity will be the scope of their employment and without occurrence exceeding is subject to liability arising State shall be filed held liable for the negligence of malice shall not be liable for: $500,000. This limit out of its negligent or with the Secretary of their employees while driving a (1) An act or omission in the execution of a does not apply if the otherwise wrongful acts or State within 180 days motor vehicle as long as the statute or a discretionary duty; State has purchased omissions and those of its IDAHO from when the claim employee was driving while in (2) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, liability insurance in employees acting within arose, and action must the scope of their employment misrepresentation, false imprisonment; and excess or if the action the scope of employment commence within two and no exceptions apply. (3) Arises out of the collection of any tax or is caused by willful or to the same extent a years. Idaho Code §§ Teurlings v. Larson, 156 Idaho fee. reckless conduct. private person would be 6-905 and 6-911. 65, 320 P.3d 1224 (2014). Idaho Code § 6-926. liable. Idaho Code § 6-903 See Idaho Code § 6-904; § 6-904 (a); and § 6- (1976). 904 (b) for other specific exceptions. No punitive damages against the State. Idaho Code § 6-918.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 13 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) State Immunity Illinois State employees are immune from Act. liability if their act or omission is 745 I.L.C.S. § 5/1 (1972). discretionary in function. Michigan Ave. Nat. Bank v. Cty. of Cook, 191 Ill.2d 493, 732 State is immune unless Claims for tort N.E.2d 528 (2000); Harinek v. 161 N. Clark St. legislative exception. damages are limited Tort claims made against the Ltd. P’ship, 692 N.E.2d 1177 (1998). Tort claims against the to $100,000 if it does Court of Claims Act. State involving the negligent State shall be filed Discretionary acts of a local government and not involve the 705 I.L.C.S. § 505/1. operation of a State vehicle are within two (2) years its employees are entitled to absolute operation of a State to be heard by the Court of ILLINOIS All claims against the State from when the claim immunity. Johnson v. Mers, 664 N.E.2d 668 motor vehicle. 705 Claims and are not limited to for damages in cases arose. 705 I.L.C.S. § (Ill. App. 1996). Discretionary acts are unique I.L.C.S. § 505/8. the $100,000 cap. 705 I.L.C.S. § sounding in tort, if like 505/22. to public office and require deliberation, cause of action would lie 505/8(d). decision, or judgment. White v. Village of If State-owned vehicle against a private person or Homewood, 673 N.E.2d 1092 (Ill. App. 1996). operated by State corporation shall be heard Ministerial acts are generally performed in employee, no limit. before the Court of Claims prescribed manner in obedience to legal (7 ). 705 I.L.C.S. § authority. Snyder v. Curran Township, 657 505/8. N.E.2d 988 (Ill. 1995). There are several exceptions to Indiana’s No punitive damages Claims against the waiver of immunity including: against the State. I.C. State are barred (1) discretionary functions*; § 34-13-3-4. unless Tort Claims (2) the adoption and enforcement of or Indiana shall not be Notice is filed with Indiana Tort Claims Act. failure to adopt and enforce a law; and liable for more than attorney general or Governmental entity can (3) the act or omission of anyone other than $300,000 to a single the state agency The defense of sovereign be subjected to liability for the governmental entity or their employee. claimant (if before involved within 270 immunity is not available to the their own tortious conduct See I.C. § 34-13-3-3 for more exceptions. 1/1/06) or $500,000 days after the loss State for the negligent or conduct of their (if after 1/1/06 and occurs. I.C. § 34-13-3- operation of its vehicles. State *“Planning/operational test” is used. INDIANA employees acting within before 1/1/08) or 6. v. Turner, 286 N.E.2d Immunity only if function characterized as the scope of employment, $700,000 (if after 697(1972); 3A Ind. Law Encyc. “policy decisions that have resulted from a unless the conduct is Suit based on breach 1/1/08) and for a Automobiles and Motor conscious balancing of risks and benefits within an immunity of express or implied single occurrence, Vehicles § 123. and/or weighing of priorities.” Peavler v. Bd. granted by statute. I.C. § must be filed liability shall not of Comm’rs of Monroe Cty., 528 N.E.2d 40 34-13-3-3 (1973). within ten (10) years. exceed $5,000,000. (Ind. 1988). Usual statutes of I.C. § 34-13-3-4. limitation otherwise Any contributory negligence remains a apply. I.C. § 34-13-1-1. complete defense to any claim under the Tort Claims Act. I.C. § 34-51-2-2.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 14 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Iowa Tort Claims Act. The State may be held Iowa shall be liable to the same A governmental entity is entitled to liable for its negligence and extent as a private individual the negligence of its immunity only to the extent permitted by under like circumstances. I.C.A. statute. Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548 employees while acting § 669.4. with the scope of Claims against the (Iowa 2011). State are barred employment. I.C.A. § This includes the negligence of Iowa retains immunity for claims arising out unless notice is No punitive damages 669.5. the State or its employees of: IOWA provided in writing acting under the scope of against the State. I.C. (1) acts or omissions of a State employee in The State shall defend, within two (2) years of employment while operating a § 669.4. the execution of a statute; indemnify, and hold the claim. I.C.A. § motor vehicle. Swanger v. (2) discretionary functions; and harmless any employee, 669.13. State, 445 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa (3) any claim arising out of assault, battery, against any claim so long 1989); Starlin v. State, 450 false imprisonment, misrepresentation. as the employee’s conduct N.W.2d 257 (Iowa Ct. App. was not willful or 1989). See I.C. § 669.14 for more exceptions. malicious. I.C.A. § 669.21 (1965).

No liability for: State’s liability shall None. (1) legislative functions; not exceed $500,000 Kansas Tort Claims Act. One case stretches the Governmental entities shall be (2) judicial functions; for claims arising out 120-day notice liable for damages caused by a K.S.A. §§ 75-6101 - 75- (3) failure to enforce a law; of a single occurrence requirement for claims negligent act or omission of any 6120 (1979). (4) failure to exercise or perform a or accident. against municipalities of its employees while acting discretionary function or duty on the part of Governmental entity KANSAS Governmental entity liable to also apply for claims within the scope of a governmental entity or employee. for negligence unless against the State. employment under or its employees See K.S.A. § 75-6104 for more exceptions. acting within the exception in Act. Harris v. Christopher v. State ex circumstances where a private scope of employment Werholtz, 260 P.3d 101 rel. Kansas Juvenile person, would be liable. K.S.A. “Discretionary function” means more than shall not be liable for (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). Justice Auth., 143 P.3d § 75-6103. use of judgment. Must involve element of punitive damages. 685 (2006). policy formation. Clark v. Thomas, 505 F.Supp.2d 884 (D. Kan. 2007). K.S.A. § 75-6105.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 15 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) The Board is empowered “to investigate, hear proof, and to compensate persons for Jurisdiction of the damages sustained to either The Board of Claims preserves sovereign Board is exclusive, person or property as a Kentucky Board of Claims immunity for acts involving: and a single claim Act. proximate result of negligence may not exceed (1) discretionary acts or decisions; All claims must be on the part of the $200,000. If a single The Board of Claims has (2) decisions; filed with the Board of Commonwealth (includes act results in multiple jurisdiction over civil (3) ministerial acts; Claims within one (1) employees’ negligence in claims, the total actions brought against the (4) actions in the performance of obligations KENTUCKY year from the time the operating a motor vehicle). award may not Commonwealth, its running to the public as a whole; claim for relief Johnson v. Kentucky State exceed $350,000, agencies, officers, and (5) governmental performance of a self- accrued. K.R.S. § Police, 2010 WL 2788156 (Ky. equally divided employees, while acting imposed protective function to the public or 44.110. Ct. App. 2010). among the claimants, within the scope of their citizen; and but no one claimant employment. K.R.S. §§ The Board of Claims does not (6) administrative acts. 44.070 and 44.072 (1986). have jurisdiction over claims may receive more K.R.S. § 44.073. made against State employees than $200,000. K.R.S. in their individual capacity. § 44.070. Spillman v. Beauchamp, 362 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1962). In order for a State employee to be a “covered individual”, they must present the Attorney General with a copy of the Suit must be brought $500,000 per person Louisiana Governmental complaint, who will then in Louisiana State Liability shall not be imposed on public for personal injury or Claims Act. determine whether the Court. La. R.S. § entities or their officers or employees based wrongful death. La. individual was within their La. R.S. §§ 13:5101- 5113 13:5106. upon the exercise or the failure to exercise R.S. § 13:5106(B). (1975). scope of employment during their policymaking or discretionary acts The notice deadline the cause of action. La. R.S. § Money for medical The State, a State agency, when such acts are within the scope of their LOUISIANA for a suit against the 13:5108.1. lawful powers and duties except for acts not care post-judgment or a political subdivision State is the equal to placed in reversionary The State will be liable for the reasonably related to governmental shall not be immune from the normal statute of trust which goes back negligent operation of a motor objectives and acts which constitute suit and liability for injury limitations for that to political subdivision vehicle by an employee or criminal, fraudulent, or intentional to person or property. La. type of claim.La. R.S. § if not used. La. R.S. § officer done within the scope misconduct. La. R.S. § 9:2798.1. Const. Art. XII, § 10. 13:5108. 13:5106(B)(3). of their employment. Fullilove v. U.S. Cas. Co. of N.Y., 129 So.2d 816 (La. Ct. App. 1961); La. Civ. Code. Art. 2317.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 16 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) $400,000 per single Maine Tort Claims Act. Every claim against a occurrence. M.R.S.A., M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, §§ 8101 – governmental entity Except as otherwise expressly provided by Tit. 14, § 8105. 8118 (1977). or its employees is A governmental entity is liable statute, all governmental entities shall be Except as otherwise Except as otherwise forever barred unless for its negligent acts or immune from suit on any and all tort claims. provided, personal provided in the statutes, all an action therein is omissions in its ownership, Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 14, § 8103. liability of an governmental entities are begun within two maintenance or operation of: A governmental entity is not liable for any employee is limited to immune from suit on any years after the cause (1) motor vehicle; claim which results from: $10,000 for any such and all tort claims seeking of action accrues. (2) unimproved land; and claims arising out of a MAINE (1) legislative acts; recovery of damages. If M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, § (3) land, buildings, structures, single occurrence. immunity is removed by 8110. facilities or equipment (2) judicial acts; M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, § the Tort Claims Act, a claim Written notice shall be designed for use primarily by (3) discretionary acts (except if the act 8104-D. for damages must be filed within 180 days the public. involves operating a motor vehicle). brought subject to the No judgment against after any claim or See M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, § 8104-A. See M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, § 8104-B for more limitations contained in governmental entity cause. M.R.S.A., Tit. exceptions. the Act. M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, § shall include punitive 14, § 8107. 8103. damages. M.R.S.A., Tit. 14, § 8105. Immunity of the State is waived A claimant may not for tortious acts of State The liability of the institute an action personnel while acting within State and its units against the State the scope of public duties may not exceed unless: which shall include, but not be $400,000 to a single Maryland Tort Claims Act. limited to: (1) the claimant claimant for injuries Md. Code. Ann., State Immunity of the State is not waived for any submits a written (1) any authorized use of a arising from a single Gov’t §§ 12-101 - 12-110. State-owned vehicle by State tortious act or omission of State personnel incident or claim to the Treasurer that: The immunity of the State within one year; personnel, including, but not occurrence. MARYLAND and of its units is waived as limited to, commuting to and (1) is not within the scope of the public Md. Code, State Gov’t (2) the Treasurer or from the place of employment; duties of the State personnel; or to a tort action, in a court designee denies the § 12-104. of the State. claim; or (2) services (defined by § 12- (2) is made with malice or gross negligence. 101) to third parties performed The State and its Md. Code, State Gov’t § (3) the cause of action Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-522. officers and units are 12-104 (1984). by State personnel in the is filed within three course of participation in an not liable for punitive years after it arises. approved clinical training or damages. Md. Code, State Gov’t academic program. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. § 12-106. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5- Proc. § 5-522. 522.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 17 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) The State shall not be liable for any claim State not liable for based upon an act or omission: interest prior to State shall be liable for injury or (1) in the execution of a statute; judgment or for loss of property caused by the (2) discretionary acts; or punitive damages. Claim must be negligent or wrongful act or (3) arising out of an intentional tort, assault, Liability of the State shall not exceed Massachusetts Tort Claims presented in writing omission of any public libel, slander, or misrepresentation. $100,000. M.G.L.A. Act. within two years after employee while acting within See other exceptions at M.G.L.A. 258, § 10. MASSACHUSETTS the date upon which the scope of employment, in Ch. 258, § 2. M.G.L.A. Ch. 258, § 2 to § the cause of action the same manner and to the Tort Claims Act is not to be construed Claims against the 14 (1978). arose. M.G.L.A. Ch. same extent as a private restrictively for motor vehicles. Cop driving Massachusetts Bay 258, § 4. individual under like vehicle owned and registered to State, Transportation circumstances. M.G.L.A. Ch. caused accident while “on call.” Tort Claims Authority are not 258, § 2. Act was ruled not to apply since cop was not subject to the acting within scope of employment. Clickner $100,000 limit. v. City of Lowell, 663 N.E.2d 852 (1996). M.G.L.A. Ch. 258, § 2.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 18 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation)

Notice of claim must The State is immune from tort Governmental Tort be filed within 120 liability if engaged in the Liability Act. days and served on exercise or discharge of a Specific exceptions to immunity: the municipal governmental function. A State (1) maintenance of public highways (knew or M.C.L.A. §§ 691.1401 employee appointed employee will be immune from should have known of defect), M.C.L.A. § through 1419 (1986). to accept service of tort liability if: 691.1402; complaints, (extended Governmental agency (1) acting or reasonably (2) negligent operation of a government- up to 180 days if (including state) is immune believes they are acting within owned motor vehicle,* M.C.L.A. § 691.1405; disability). Substantial None if engaged in a the scope of employment; (3) public building defects, M.C.L.A. § compliance is okay. governmental function (2) the governmental agency is 691.1406; Punitive damages are M.C.L.A. § 600.1404. (activity mandated or engaged in the exercise of a (4) performance of proprietary functions by generally not authorized by constitution, recoverable unless MICHIGAN All claims must be governmental function; or government entities, M.C.L.A. § 691.1413; statute, local or filed with the Clerk of (3) does not involve gross (5) medical care or treatment provided to a authorized by statute. ordinance, or other law). the Court of Claims negligence or an intentional patient, M.C.L.A. § 691.1407(4); and Casey v. Auto Owners M.C.L.A. §§ 691.1407(1). within one year after act. M.C.L.A. § 691.1407. (6) sewage disposal system events, M.C.L.A. Ins. Co., 729 N.W.2d 277 (2006). Governmental immunity is such claim has Immunity does not apply when § 691.1417. to be broadly construed, accrued. M.C.L.A. § engaged in a proprietary *Municipal employee’s personal liability unless a narrowly drawn 600.6431. function (any activity which is when driving his own vehicle or the exception applies in a Court of Claims has conducted primarily for the municipality’s vehicle is restricted to actions claim. Nawrocki v Macomb exclusive jurisdiction purpose of producing a found to be “grossly negligent.” Alex v. County Road Comm., 615 over claims made pecuniary profit for the Wildfong, 594 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. 1999). N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2000). against the State. governmental agency). M.C.L.A. M.C.L.A. § 600.6419. § 691.1413.

State will pay for property The State and its employees are not liable $500,000 per person; damage or personal injury for losses caused by: $1,500,000 per caused by an act or omission of (1) an act or omission of a state employee occurrence after July Notice is required a State employee while acting exercising due care in the execution of a 1, 2009. M.S.A. § Minnesota Tort Claims within 180 days after within scope of employment statute or rule; 3.736. Act. the alleged loss or under circumstances where the MINNESOTA (2) discretionary functions; or injury is discovered. State, if a private person, No punitive damages. M.S.A. § 3.736 (1976). (3) conditions of highways or public M.S.A. § 3.736. would be liable to the claimant, If liability insurance, buildings, except if caused by employee whether arising out of a limits of insurance are negligence. governmental or proprietary the maximum. M.S.A. function. M.S.A. § 3.736. See M.S.A. § 3.736 for other exclusions. § 3.736.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 19 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Notice of claim must be filed with chief The State and its employees preserve their executive officer of immunity for claims caused by: the governmental entity at least 90 days (1) a legislative or judicial action or inaction; Mississippi Tort Claims before instituting suit. (2) an act or omission of a State employee The immunity of the State and The State’s liability Act. M.C.A. § 11-46-11(1). exercising due care in the execution of a M.C.A. §§ 11-46-1 through its political subdivisions from statute or rule; shall not exceed 11-46-23 (1984). Suit must be claims arising out of the torts of (3) police/fire protection (unless reckless); $500,000 for all commenced within such governmental entities and claims arising out of a MISSISSIPPI (4) discretionary function (official required to State waives immunity for one (1) year after the the torts of their employees use judgment or discretion). single occurrence. tort and contract claims, date of the tort. while acting within the scope of The State will not pay See M.C.A. § 11-46-9 for other exceptions. subject to statutory M.C.A. § 11-46-11(3). their employment is hereby punitive damages. exceptions. M.C.A. § 11- waived. M.C.A. § 11-46-5. Immunity will not be granted to a State M.C.A. § 11-46-15. Bodily injury and 46-5. employee when they negligently operate a property claims must motor vehicle outside of a discretionary be brought within function. Mixon v. Mississippi Dep’t of three (3) years after Transp., 183 So.3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). injury is discovered. M.C.A. § 11-15-49. The immunity of the State is waived in these instances: Claims shall not (1) injuries resulting from State The Commissioner of Administration and the exceed $2,000,000 for Claims against the employee’s negligent act or governing body of each political subdivision claims arising out of a State shall be brought omission while operating a of the State may purchase liability insurance single occurrence and Missouri Tort Claims Act. to the Commissioner motor vehicle within the scope for tort claims, made against the State or the shall not exceed Mo. Stat. §§ 537.600 - of Administration, for of employment; political subdivision. $300,000 for any one MISSOURI 537.650 (1978). approval, within two (2) injuries caused by the person in a single Immunity is waived up to the extent of the accident or Tort immunity not waived. years after such claim dangerous condition of a State- accrues. Mo. Stat. § owned property; and coverage provided in the policy or self- occurrence. insurance plan. 33.120. (3) Contract claims. The State will not pay Mo. Stat. § 537.600; Kunzie v. Mo. Stat. § 537.610. punitive damages. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570 Mo. Stat. § 537.610. (Mo. 2006).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 20 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation)

Complaint must first The State is not liable be presented in for tort claims in writing to Department excess of $750,000 for each claim and of Administration. The State is subject to liability for The State shall not be liable for certain $1.5 million for each Department must its torts and those of its legislative, judicial, and gubernatorial occurrence. Mont. Montana Tort Claims Act. grant or deny the employees acting within the actions. Mont. Stat. §§ 2-9-111 through 2-9- Stat. § 2-9-108. MONTANA Mont. Stat. §§ 2-9-101 claim within 120 days. scope of employment or duties 113. whether arising out of a through 2-9-114 (1973). Upon receipt of the The State and other governmental or proprietary See Mont. Stat. § 2-9-108 for other claim, the statute of governmental entities function. Mont. Stat. § 2-9-102. exceptions. limitations is tolled for are immune from 120 days. exemplary and punitive damages. Mont. Stat. § 2-9-301. Mont. Stat. § 2-9-105. The State shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual Claims shall be forever under like circumstances. Neb. The State does not waive its immunity for barred unless the Rev. Stat. § 81-8,215. claims involving: (1) a discretionary function or due care in Nebraska Tort Claims Act. claim is made in Injury to any innocent third writing to the Risk the execution of a statute; or NEBRASKA Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 81-8,209 party proximately caused by None Manager within two (2) assault, battery, false imprisonment, or - 81-8,239.11 (1969). the action of a law years after such claim enforcement officer employed misrepresentation. accrued. Neb. Rev. by the State during vehicular See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,219 for other Stat. § 81-8,227. pursuit, damages shall be paid exceptions. to such third party by the State employing the officer. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8,215.01.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 21 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) No action may be brought against the State or its employees which are based upon: (1) an act or omission of an officer or A claim must be filed Nevada hereby waives its employee exercising due care, in the with the Attorney immunity from liability and execution of a statute, or in the performance General within two Damages against the action and consents to have its of a discretionary act; years after the cause State may not exceed Nevada Tort Claims Act. liability determined in (2) failure to inspect any building, structure, of action accrues. the sum of $100,000. accordance with the same rules vehicle, street, public highway or other NEVADA N.R.S. §§ 41.031 through Filing a claim is not a The State will not pay of law as are applied to civil public work, to determine any hazards, 41.0337 (1965). condition to punitive damages. actions against natural persons, deficiencies or other matters, whether or bringing an action N.R.S. § 41.035. except as otherwise provided. not there is a duty to inspect; against the State. N.R.S. § 41.031. (3) an injury sustained from a public building N.R.S. § 41.036. or public vehicle by a person who was engaged in any criminal act. N.R.S. § 41.032, § 41.033 and § 41.0334. Suit against State must All claims arising out be commenced within of single incident shall three years. Written State generally waives its State does not waive its immunity for claims be limited to an notice must be immunity to tort liability. N.H. involving: award not to exceed presented to the Rev. Stat. § 541-B:2, § 541-B:9, (1) the exercise of a legislative or judicial $475,000 per Claims Against the State. agency within 180 § 541-B:9-a. function; claimant and N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 541-B:1 days of the injury. N.H. Immunity also waived as to (2) an act or omission of a State employee, $3,750,000 per any to 541-B:23 (1985). Rev. Stat. § 541-B:14. contract liability. N.H. Rev. Stat. or official when exercising due care in the single incident, or the NEW HAMPSHIRE Sovereign immunity deeply Claims made against § 491:8. execution of any statute; proceeds from any entrenched. Krzysztalowski the State for less than A claim against the State for (3) discretionary function (involves executive insurance policy, v. Fortin, 230 A.2d 750 $5,000 are to be heard the negligent use of a motor or planning function); and whichever amount is (N.H. 1967). by the Board of Claims vehicle is allowed since the greater. for the State. Any (4) an intentional tort, assault, libel, slander, State has purchased insurance. The State will not pay claim against the State misrepresentation. State v. Brosseau, 470 A.2d 869 punitive damages. in excess of $5,000 N.H. Rev. Stat. § 541-B:19. (1983). N.H. Rev. Stat. § 541- shall be heard by the B:14. Superior Court.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 22 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) No Dollar Caps New Jersey Tort Claims A claim against a Limitations on liability: No subrogation Act. allowed against “a “public entity” for Public entity liable for: • A discretionary function (involves policy N.J.S.A. §§ 59:1-1 through death or for injury or judgment or determining resources or public entity or public • Condition of property if 59:12-3 (1972). damage to person or when or whether to purchase equipment, employee.” N.J.S.A. § dangerous condition and to property shall be construct or maintain facilities, hire 59:9-2(e). “Public entity” includes all failure to take action presented not later personnel or provide adequate services). counties, municipalities, “palpably unreasonable.” No recovery for pain than the 90th day after N.J.S.A. § 59:2-3. districts, and other political N.J.S.A. § 59:2-3. and suffering, but this accrual of the cause of • Adopting or failing to adopt a law or by subdivisions. N.J.S.A. § • Sewer back up if limitation on recovery action. failing to enforce any law. N.J.S.A. § 59:2- 59:1-3. maintenance program was unless permanent NEW JERSEY 4. loss of bodily Immunity waived. A Six (6) months after palpably unreasonable or • Failure to make an inspection, or negligent function, permanent “public entity” is liable for notice has been negligence in performance. inspection of any property. N.J.S.A. § 59:2- disfigurement or injury caused by an act or received, suit may be • Ministerial or operational 6. dismemberment omission of a public filed. functions. • Crime, actual , actual malice, or when medical employee in the same Suit must be filed Negligent operation of motor willful misconduct. N.J.S.A. § 59:2-10. expenses are in manner and to the same within two (2) years vehicle. Gruschow v. New • Discretion in decision-making or excess of $3,600. extent as a private after the date of Jersey State Highway Dep't, prioritizing needs when faced with individual unless there is accrual. Punitive damages 152 A.2d 150 (N.J. App. 1959). budgetary issues. exception in Act. N.J.S.A. § N.J.S.A § 59:8-8. cannot be awarded. 59:2-2. See N.J.S.A. § 59:2-5 for other exceptions. N.J.S.A. § 59:9-2 (c) and (d).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 23 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Liability of State for a single occurrence shall not exceed: (1) $200,000 for damage to or Exclusions to the Tort Claims Act include: destruction of real Written notice must (1) negligence of public employees within property; be provided within 90 the scope of their duties in the operation or (2) $300,000 for past days after the Tort Claims Act shields the maintenance of any motor vehicle, aircraft and future medical occurrence. N.M.R.A. or watercraft (N.M.R.A. § 41-4-5); and Tort Claims Act. State and public employees expenses; § 41-4-16. from liability for torts except (2) negligence of public employees within (3) $400,000 for all N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-1 when immunity is specifically the scope of their duties in the operation or damages other than through 41-4-30 (1976). Action against the State must be brought waived. N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-1 and maintenance of any building, public park, damage within two years after 41-4-4. machinery, equipment or furnishings and medical the occurrence. (N.M.R.A. § 41-4-6). expenses; and N.M.R.A. § 41-4-15. See N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-4 through 41-4-12 for (4) total liability for a other exceptions. single occurrence shall not exceed $750,000. State will not pay punitive damages. N.M.R.A. § 41-4-19.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 24 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) If governmental act involved, no liability New York Court of Claims even if there was malice or special duty Written notice of State immune when Act. owed to plaintiff as opposed to mere public intention to file claim performing governmental act N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act §§ 8 – 12 must be filed and duty (Public Duty Defense). Special duty (legislating, judging, or making formed in three ways: (1929). served on Attorney discretionary decisions) as General within 90 days (1) Statute for class of persons; State waives immunity and opposed to proprietary act (act None consents to being sued in (6 months for breach substitutes for or supplement (2) Assumption of duty toward person (most No punitive damages the same manner as a of contract claims). traditionally private common); and allowed. private person would, so N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 10. enterprises). (3) Assume direction and control in face of NEW YORK long as requirements of Specific requirements known safety violation. Wang v. N.Y. State Proprietary acts include: Dep’t of Health, 933 the Court of Claims Act are for filing claim. N.Y. Ct. If ministerial act, plaintiff must still show a • Rents real property; N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. complied with. Cl. Act § 11. special duty existed. McLean v. City of New • Health care; Sup. Ct. 2011). Parallel statute deals with Court of Claims has York, 905 N.E.2d 1167 (N.Y. App. 2009) (duty • Operating school; and Port Authority almost exclusive jurisdiction trumps all else). • Operating vehicle. identically. over claims against If governmental act and special duty exists, Morell v. Balasubramanian, 514 N.Y. Unconsol. Law §§ State but not city, no immunity if act was ministerial. If N.E.2d 1101 (1987). 7101 to 7112. county or town. discretionary, government must actually have exercised its discretion to be immune. Claims against the Contributory negligence by the claimant bars State must be filed Claim for Injury and The Tort Claims Act covers all recovery under the State Tort Claims Act. with Industrial damage to any one claims arising as a result of the N.C.G.S.A. § 143-299.1; Oates v. N. Carolina Accident Commission person capped at negligence of any officer, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 24 N.C. App. 690, North Carolina Tort Claims within three (3) years $1,000,000 less any of the accident. employee, involuntary servant, 212 S.E.2d 33 (1975). NORTH Act. commercial liability or agent of the State while Intentional acts are not compensable. White insurance purchased CAROLINA N.C.G.S.A. § 143-291 If death results, claim acting within the scope of his v. Trew, 366 N.C. 360, 736 S.E.2d 166 (2013). by the State that is (1951). must be filed within office, employment, service, applicable to the two years by personal agency or authority. N.C.G.S.A. Claims are brought before the Industrial claim. N.C.G.S.A. § representative of the § 143-291. Commission, reviewable by Superior Court. 143-299.2. deceased. N.C.G.S.A. § 143-291. N.C.G.S.A. § 143-299.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 25 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) State waives immunity for both tort and contract claims. State liable for an injury caused by: Suit against State must be commenced within (1) negligence of employee Recovery limited to a three years. N.D.C.C. § acting within scope of total of $250,000 per 32-12.2-02. employment (including person and operating motor vehicles); or N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-02(3) lists claims for $1,000,000 for any which a State employee is not liable. (e.g., Claims Against The State. Written notice must (2) use or condition of tangible number of claims be presented in legislative, quasi-legislative, public duties, arising from a single NORTH DAKOTA N.D.C.C. §§ 32-12.2-01 to property, if employee would be collection of taxes, environmental 32-12.2-18 (1995). writing to the Director personally liable if a private occurrence and of the Office of contamination, liability assumed under prohibits punitive person would be liable under contract except for rental vehicles, etc.). Management and the circumstances. N.D.C.C. § damages in actions Budget within 180 32-12.2-02. against the State. days. N.D.C.C. § 32- N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-02. 12.2-04. Employee cannot be personally liable. This includes operation of a motor vehicle. N.D.C.C. § 32-12.2-03.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 26 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) No subrogation Plaintiff must claims. Damages to have claim reduced by other compromised or collateral source satisfied by the State’s recoveries received State waives immunity and by the claimant. Ohio liability insurance. consents to be sued and have No in Court of Claims. Ohio Rev. Rev. Code § its liability determined in the If State does not Code § 2743.11; Loc.R. 6 of the Court of 2743.02(D). Court of Claims by the same compromise within a Claims. Court of Claims. reasonable time (at rules as a suit between private No Punitive Damages Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2743.01 least 60 days) before parties. Ohio Rev. Code § Settlements must be approved by Attorney State may, but is not - .03 (1985). SOL expires, or if the 2743.02(A)(1). General and the Court of Claims. Ohio Rev. required to, insure its amount of the claim Claims allowed against State Code § 2743.16. employees for OHIO Court of Claims – Practice exceeds the State’s for negligence operation of operation of motor and Procedure. State immune from liability for claims arising liability insurance motor vehicle driven by State out of the performance or nonperformance vehicles. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2743.11 coverage, plaintiff may employee, even if driving own of a public duty. Ohio Rev. Code § Any such insurance to 2743.20. commence an action. personal vehicle. Ohio Rev. 2743.02(3)(a). must be provided by Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § Code § 2743.16(B). Subrogation claims not permitted. Ohio Rev. the Department of 2743.16(B). State employee cannot be sued Code § 2744.05(B). Administrative Two (2) year statute of personally unless not in scope Services (DAS) limitations on actions of employment. through the Office of against State. Ohio Risk Management Rev. Code § (ORM). 2743.16(A). Ohio Rev. Code § 9.83.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 27 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Property Claims: Thirty-seven (37) exceptions where State not $25,000. Notice of claim within liable for torts of State employees acting in one (1) year after loss. scope of employment: Other Losses: State employee acting in scope 51 Okla. Stat. § 156(B). (1) legislative functions; $175,000 per person. Oklahoma Governmental of employment is liable for loss ($200,000 for medical Notice filed CMRRR unless falls under exceptions (2) discretionary acts such as policy decisions Tort Claims Act. with Risk Management negligence). $1 (General Waiver of Immunity). (limited). “Planning-operational” approach million per 51 Okla. Stat. § 151 – 200 Administrator of the 51 Okla. Stat. § 152.1(A). to understanding the scope of this exception (1978). Office of Public Affairs. occurrence. 51 Okla. No subrogation claims allowed to liability; Stat. § 154(A). 51 Okla. Stat. § 152.1(A) 51 Okla. Stat. § 156(C). OKLAHOMA against State. 51 Okla. Stat. § (3) natural snow or ice conditions; adopts sovereign Suit may be filed once No punitive damages. 155(28). (4) absence, condition, location or immunity. claim denied (deemed Several liability only. malfunction of traffic sign unless not denied if not approved Liable for operation of motor 51 Okla. Stat. § 154. 51 Okla. Stat. § 152.1(B) corrected within reasonable time after within 90 days). vehicles. However, liability If insurance, policy waives immunity as limited to amount of liability notice; provided in the Act. Plaintiff has 180 days terms govern rights insurance purchased. 51 Okla. (5) subrogation claim; and and obligations of after 90-day period to Stat. §§ 157.1-158.2. file. 51 Okla. Stat. § (6) any loss to person covered by workers’ State. 51 Okla. Stat. § 157. compensation. 158. See 51 Okla. Stat. § 155 for more exceptions. No subro claims. Okla. Stat. § 155(28).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 28 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Personal Injury: Action must be $2,073,600 Per commenced within Person. $4,147,100 two (2) years. O.R.S. § Per Occurrence. 30.275(9). Exceptions to liability: Oregon Tort Claims Act is Property Damage: (1) injury covered by workers’ Notice of claim to the limited waiver of sovereign compensation; $113,400 Per Person. office of the Director immunity. $566,900 Per Tort Actions Against Public of the Oregon (2) exercise of discretionary function* or Occurrence. O.R.S. §§ Bodies (a/k/a Oregon Tort Department of Every public body subject to duty; and liability for its employees’ and 30.271(4), 30.272(4), OREGON Claims Act). Administrative (3) act under apparent authority of law. agents’ torts committed within 30.273(3). O.R.S. §§ 30.260 - 30.300 Services within 180 the scope of their employment, O.R.S. § 30.265(6). Claims which are (1967). days. including operation of motor *Discretionary function is policy-making subject to the OTCA No particular form for vehicles. decision (policy judgment). Negligent are not subject to notice. Provide time, O.R.S. § 30.275. implementation of policy is not immune. No O.R.S. § 30.710, place, circumstances, immunity if duty to act. setting limit of damages, contact $500,000 for non- information. O.R.S. § economic damages in 30.275. civil actions. O.R.S. § 30.269(2). Sovereign Immunity Act waives Notice of Intention to Commonwealth immunity for Make Claim against damages arising out of a “Commonwealth negligent act where the $250,000 Per Person. Pennsylvania Sovereign Party” must be made damages would be recoverable $1,000,000 Per Immunity Act. within six months by private person. 42 Pa. C. S. § Exceptions to sovereign immunity. Plaintiff Occurrence. after cause of action 42 Pa. C.S. § 8501, et seq. 8522(a). It includes: cannot recover under motor vehicle accrued. 42 Pa. C.S. § Can only recover: (1988). exception if fleeing apprehension of resisting 5522. (1) motor vehicle operation; (1) past and future Commonwealth Court has arrest by a police officer. 42 Pa. C.S. §§ (2) medical profession; loss of earnings; PENNSYLVANIA jurisdiction over civil No notice needed 8522(b) and 8542(b). (3) care, custody, control of (2) pain and suffering; actions brought against the where “dangerous ; No property damage recoverable under (3) medical expenses; “Commonwealth condition” of real (4) real estate, highways, potholes and dangerous conditions. 42 Pa. (4) loss of consortium; government” with four estate, highways, and sidewalks; C.S. § 8528(c)(5). and specific exceptions. 42 Pa. sidewalks. Potholes (5) potholes and dangerous (5) property losses. C.S. § 761. require actual written conditions; notice and time to fix. (6) control of animals; and 42 Pa. C.S. § 8528. 42 Pa. C.S. § (7) vaccines. 5522(a)(3). Pa. C.S. § 8522(b).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 29 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Damages may not exceed $100,000. R.I.G.L. § 9-31-2 (West). Three (3) year statute Limit not applicable if Governmental Tort State was engaged in Liability Act. of limitation for any State’s sovereign immunity as action against State. to tort actions and its 11th a proprietary function R.I.G.L. § 9-31-1 (1970). R.I.G.L. § 9-1-25. Amendment immunity both or has agreed to There are few conditions on the State’s indemnify the federal State liable for all actions Notice of Claim must waived. Laird v. Chrysler, 460 RHODE ISLAND consent to suit. Marrapese v. State, 500 F. government or any of tort in the same manner be given within three A.2d 425 (R.I. 1983). as a private individual or Supp. 1207 (D. R.I. 1980). agency. R.I.G.L. § 9- (3) years from the Does not apply to proceedings 31-3. corporation unless date the cause of against State before exception. R.I.G.L. § 9-31- action accrues. R.I.G.L. administrative agencies. State must secure $75 1. § 9-1-25. million insurance policy covering operation of commuter rail service. R.I.G.L. § 9- 31-3. Two (2) year statute of limitations; Three Statute lists non-exclusive list of 40 South Carolina Tort Claims years after Notice of exceptions to the general waiver of State Act. Claim (year added to sovereign immunity, including, among Statute of Limitations others: S.C. Code § 15-78-10, et if notice procedure seq. (1986). (1) legislative, judicial actions; $300,000 Per Person followed). S.C. Code § (2) discretionary acts; Sovereign immunity waived $600,000 Per Limited waiver of 15-78-110. (3) natural snow or ice conditions; (State liable) for all torts unless Occurrence sovereign immunity, (4) authorized entry on property; SOUTH CAROLINA Notice setting forth listed under exceptions to subject to exceptions. (5) absence or condition of traffic sign or No Punitive Damages the circumstances, waiver of immunity. State is liable for torts to extent of loss, time barrier unless given reasonable notice to S.C. Code § 15-78- the same extent as private and place, names of all repair; 120. individual, subject to persons involved, and (6) claim against DOT allowed for improper limitations. S.C. Code § 15- amount of loss, must maintenance but not faulty design; and 78-40. be filed within one (1) (7) any judicial proceeding. year. S.C. Code § 15- S.C. Code § 15-78-60. 78-80.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 30 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Whether a State employee, Factors to be considered in determining a who is sued in an individual discretionary function include: capacity, is entitled to (1) nature and importance; immunity depends upon the (2) extent to which passing judgment on function performed by the exercise of discretion passes judgment on Remedies Against The employee. Immune branch of government; State. discretionary function (involves (3) would liability impair free exercise of S.D.C.L. §§ 21-32-1 to 21- policy-making power), but not discretion; 32-21 (1947). when they perform ministerial (4) likelihood of harm to members of public function (“absolute, certain, South Dakota common law if action taken; Written notice of the and imperative” act simple and Constitution prohibit (5) nature and seriousness of harm; and time, place, and cause carrying out of a policy already that “governing acts” of (6) availability of other remedies. of the injury is given to established).* SOUTH DAKOTA State, its agencies and the public entity Discretionary: Highway construction and None Wulf v. Senst, 669 N.W.2d 135 other public entities can’t within 180 days after Maintenance; Allocating plows, resource and (S.D. 2003). be attacked in court the injury. S.D.C.L. § 3- equipment for snow removal. without the State's 21-2. *Even if discretionary function Ministerial: Once it is determined that act consent. involved: State may purchase should be performed, subsequent S.D. Const. Art. III, § 27; liability insurance. S.D.C.L. § 21- performance is ministerial. (e.g., operating Blue Fox Bar, Inc. v. City of 32-15. motor vehicle). Yankton, 424 N.W.2d 915 Purchase of insurance waives No immunity for breach of contract claims. (S.D. 1988). immunity and is consent to be Masad v. Weber, 772 N.W.2d 144 (S.D. sued. S.D.C.L. § 21-32-16. 2009). State and its employees S.D.C.L. § 21-32-1 establishes the Office of immune except as provided in Commissioner of Claims, which hears § 21-32-16; S.D.C.L. § 21-32-17. contract and tort claims against the State.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 31 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Claims Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear $300,000 for bodily None applicable to the claims against State, it is injury or death of any State. limited to those claims listed in § 9-8-307(a). one person in any one Tennessee Claims accident, occurrence Common law negligence rules Commission created to Written notice of or act. $700,000 for apply. hear and adjudicate claims claim must be filed (on bodily injury or death Claim For Damages Otherwise State is immune. Purchase of liability insurance does not against State. T.C.A. §§ 9- waive sovereign immunity. 1984 Tenn. Pub. of all persons in any 8-301 to 307 (1984). Form) with Division of Claims allowed: one accident. T.C.A. § Claims Administration Acts 972; Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 85-087 (1) operation of motor vehicle; 9-8-307(3)(e). Established State’s liability (DCA) within (1985). (2) nuisances; in tort based on traditional applicable statute of Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (§ No Punitive Damages (3) dangerous conditions on TENNESSEE concepts of duty and limitations. 9-8-307) not applicable to State. Lucas v. Bowden Bldg. Corp. v. real property (foreseeable and reasonably prudent State, 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. App. 2004). Tennessee Real Estate DCA has 90 days to notice); persons’ standard of care. Comm'n, 15 S.W.3d approve or deny. Then (4) legal/medical malpractice; If State is liable, employee is immune, unless Act restricts State to the 434, 446 (Tenn. App. that jurisdiction (5) negligent care of persons or outside scope of employment, intentional, defense of absolute 1999). transfers to Tennessee property; or done for personal gain. T.C.A. § 29-20- immunity only as an Claims Commission. (6) negligent construction of 310(b). If claim exceeds exception to Act’s broad sidewalks/buildings; $25,000, Tennessee abrogation of sovereign T.C.A. § 9-8-402. (7) design and construction of Claims Administration immunity. Lucas v. State, roads; turns it over to State 141 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. (8) highway conditions; Attorney General to App. 2004). (9) negligent operation of investigate. Machinery; and (10) many others.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 32 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) State’s immunity is waived for: Texas Tort Claims Act (1) use of motor vehicle;* State employees enjoy either absolute (TTCA). Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code immunity (e.g., judges) or qualified immunity Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021(1). (e.g., jailers, sheriffs, and other public Ann. §§ 101.001–.109 Formal, written notice (2) injury caused by condition officers or employees). (1965). no later than six or use of tangible personal or State employees’ qualified immunity applies Absent a waiver of months after day the real property;** only to discretionary actions taken in good immunity, governmental incident occurs, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code faith within the scope of the employee’s entities are generally reasonably describing: Ann. § 101.021(2); and authority. immune from liability. (1) the damage or (3) claims arising from premises No qualified immunity for ministerial Bodily Injury/Death: University of Tex. Sw. Med. injury claimed; defects. (mandatory) actions. $250,000 Per Person Ctr. v. Estate of Arancibia, (2) the time and place Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code of the incident; and State involved in joint enterprise is liable for $500,000 Occurrence 324 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. Ann. § 101.021(2).*** the torts of other members of the joint TEXAS (3) the incident. Damage to Property: 2010). *State only liable if employee enterprise. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. $100,000 occurrence TTCA is a limited waiver of operating vehicle would have Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608 sovereign immunity Code Ann. § been liable. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. 101.101(a). (Tex. 2000). (qualified immunity) for **Liable only if private person Code § 101.023. certain torts. “Actual notice” can would have been liable. This TTCA (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.022) says two additional liability Unless there is a waiver of substitute. precludes suit predicated solely limitations apply: immunity in the TTCA, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. on respondeat superior. there is sovereign Code Ann. § Involves activities conducted (1) special defects (e.g., unusual danger); immunity. 101.101(c). on real property, not defects in and (2) Absence, condition or malfunction of City of Denton v. Van Page, the real property. traffic signs. 701 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. ***Claims involving premises 1986). liability (defect in real property) Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.060. brought under this section.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 33 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Immunity waived as to: Governmental entity immune (1) any act by employee in scope of Written Notice of from latent condition of road, employment; Utah Governmental Claim must be filed tunnel, bridge, sidewalk or any (2) contractual obligations; Immunity Act (GIAU). within one year after public building or structure. (3) defective, unsafe condition of road, Property Damage: U.C.A. §§ 63G-7-101 denial of claim. U.C.A. No liability (immunity not sidewalk, bridge, etc.; $233,600. §§ 63G-7-401. (4) defect or condition of building, structure, through 63G-7-904 (1963). waived) for: U.C.A. § 63G-7- etc. (U.C.A. § 63G-7-301); and Within sixty (60) days (1) “discretionary function” 604(1)(c). “Governmental Entity” and (5) injury or damage resulting from of filing written Notice (distinct and limited immunity its employees retain employee driving or being in control of a Personal Injury: of Claim government for decision that involves immunity for all vehicle. $583,900. “governmental functions” must approve or deny. policy-making function); U.C.A. § 63G-7-202(3)(c)(2). U.C.A. § 63G-7- UTAH (defined as “activity, Then suit can be See “Little Test” Little v. Utah, 604(1)(a). undertaking, or operation brought. U.C.A. §§ 667 P.2d 49 (Utah 1983) (e.g., Three-part test to determine whether of a governmental entity”) 63G-7-401, 402, 403. fire fighting). governmental entity enjoys immunity under $2 million limit to no matter how labelled, Plaintiff has one (1) (2) assault, false imprisonment; the Governmental Immunity Act: aggregate amount of unless expressly waived in individual awards for year after denial of (3) negligent inspection; (1) whether the activity is a governmental Act. claim or after the 60- function; single occurrence. (4) judicial proceedings; “Governmental Entity” day period ends to (2) whether governmental immunity was U.C.A. § 63G-7- includes State and all its bring the action. Utah (5) operation or repair of flood waived for the particular activity; and 604(1)(d). political subdivisions. Code Ann. §§63-G-7- systems; and (3) whether there is an exception to that 401, 402, 403. (6) many others. waiver. U.C.A. § 63G-7-201. Winkler v. Lemieux, 329 P.3d 849 (Utah App. 2014).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 34 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) State and its employees liable to same extent as private Exceptions to waiver of immunity set forth in Notice of a claim individual, unless exception § 5601(e): against a town for listed in insurance policy. Vt. (1) discretionary function: (a) involves either insufficiency of a Stat. Ann. 12, § 5601(e). an element of judgment/ choice or a statute bridge or culvert must Exclusive right of action is or regulation prescribes a course of action, be within 20 days. Vt. against State not employee and (b) is it type of act protected by the Stat. Ann. 19, § 987. Maximum liability of (except for gross negligence, exception (presumption can be rebutted)? the State is $500,000 Personal injury and willful act). Vt. Stat. Ann. 12, § Searles v. Agency of Transp., 762 A.2d 812 to any one person property claims must 5602(a)(b). (Vt. 2000) (e.g., no liability for operating and maximum Vermont Tort Claims Act. be filed within 3 years. emergency vehicle pursuant to § 1015(a)(4) State employees liable for aggregate liability is VERMONT Vt. Stat. Ann. 12, §§ 5601- Vt. Stat. Ann. 12, §§ (with lights and siren); operating motor vehicle $2,000,000 to all 5606 (1961). 512(4) and 512(5). because source of their (2) any claim arising from selection of or persons arising out of Small claims ($2,000 employment is unconnected to purposeful deviation from standards for each occurrence. or less) against State tort of negligent driving. planning and design of highways; and Vt. Stat. Ann. 12, § must be filed within 18 Kennery v. State, 38 A.3d 35 (3) above exceptions do not apply if there is 5601(b). months. Vt. Stat. Ann. (Vt. 2011). policy of insurance purchased by 32, § 932(b). Commissioner of Buildings and General Small claim (under $2,000) Services or if employee purchased policy Agent for service is against State not otherwise covering gross negligence. Attorney General. allowed may be filed in Small Claims Court. Vt. Stat. Ann. 32, No subrogation claims against State. § 932(a).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 35 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Exceptions to waiver of immunity are listed Commonwealth employee is in Va. St. § 8.01-195.3. immune if act ministerial (1) Tax assessment; (follows statute or established (2) Judicial Proceeding; and Virginia Tort Claims Act. rules), but not discretionary (use of judgment). Messina v. (3) Execution of Court Order. Va. St. §§ 8.01-195.1 to Burden, 321 S.E.2d 657 (Va. Claims against Commonwealth for medical 195.9 (1981). Notice must be given 1984). negligence subject to Chapter 21.1 (Va. St. § Provides a limited right to within one (1) year of 8.01-581.1, et seq.). when claim accrued. Claims allowed include: sue State employee when Recovery in medical malpractice shall not a private entity or Va. St. § 8.01-195.6 Maintenance: Failure to exceed the limits imposed by Va. St. § 8.01- individual would be liable, correct hazardous roadway Claim filed with 195.3. provided the State conditions within reasonable Director of the Immunity waived only for ministerial acts Immunity is waived employee is acting in time. Division of Risk (obedience to authority without regard to or up to $100,000 or the course and scope. management or the General Hazards: Hazards the exercise of his or her own judgment) but amount of the State’s Only partial waiver of created by design, insurance coverage, VIRGINIA Attorney General. not for discretionary acts, which have the sovereign immunity. construction, and maintenance following characteristics: whichever is greater, Must contain nature Commonwealth is immune problems (e.g., poor signing, exclusive of interest of claim, time and (1) an authorized individual or agency was from tort liability for acts low shoulders). and costs. Va. St. § place, name of agency given the power and duty to make a of employees, unless an Work Zones: Hazardous 8.01-195.3. at fault. decision; express statutory or construction and work zones (2) the decision was made from a set of valid constitutional provision Must sue within 18 (involving motor vehicles). alternatives; and waives that immunity. months of filing Operations: Hazards created by (3) the individual or agency exercised Immunity of judges, notice. Va. St. § 8.01- general operations and work independent judgment in making the attorneys, and public 195.7. zone activity that do not selection. officers of Commonwealth involve motorists. No exception for intentional acts. No is preserved. Operating Motor Vehicle: Is immunity if intentional tort or actions ministerial act. outside scope of employment. Heider v. Clemons, 400 S.E.2d Bailey v. Lewis, 2012 WL 9735223 (Va. Cir. 190 (Va. 1991). Ct. 2012); Messina v. Burden, 321 S.E.2d 657 (Va. 1984).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 36 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Verified Notice of Claim form must be filed with Washington Office of Risk No liability can be imposed against State for Management prior to “discretionary acts” of State. the expiration of the There is no immunity and State Evangelical United Brethren Church of Adna Actions and Claims is liable if: Against State. statute of limitations v. State, 407 P.2d 440 (Wash. 1965). for the claim (running (1) police high speed chase; No caps or R.C.W.A. § 4.92.090, et Guidelines used to determine if act of Statute of limitations. seq. (1963). (2) discharge of raw sewage “discretionary”: Limitations not into river: and State liable for (1) involve basic government policy, Whether acting in affected). R.C.W.A. § damages arising out (3) operating motor vehicle. program, or objective; governmental or 4.92.100. of tortuous conduct, proprietary capacity, State Rahman v. State, 1246 P.3d 182 (2) is act essential to realization of that WASHINGTON Must describe time, whether acting in and its employees liable (Wash. 2011), overturned due policy, program or objective; and place, conduct and governmental or for torts the same as to legislative action. circumstances of (3) does act involve judgment? proprietary capacity, private person. R.C.W.A. § injury, names of all No immunity for discretionary Policy-making is immune. to same extent as if it 4.92.090. activities, unless the were a private person witnesses and relevant Evangelical Church of Adna v. State, 407 P.2d government could show that a or corporation. One of the broadest persons, amount of 440 (Wash. 1965). waivers of sovereign damages, and address “policy decision.” King v. City of R.C.W.A. § 4.92.090. immunity in the country. of claimant. Seattle, 525 P.2d 228 (Wash. Discretionary decisions must be made at a 1974). “truly executive level” rather than an Suit cannot be filed operational level. Mason v. Bitton, 534 P.2d until 60 days after 1360 (Wash. 1975). standard tort claim form filed. R.C.W.A. § 4.92.110.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 37 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation)

Courts have carved out exceptions to State authorized to absolute grant of immunity including suits purchase liability that seek recovery under and up to the insurance covering State entities and officials are State’s liability insurance coverage. Univ. of State “property, absolutely immune from policy- W. Virginia Bd. of Trustees ex rel. W. Virginia activities and making acts and have qualified Univ. v. Graf, 516 S.E.2d 741 (W. Va. 1998). responsibilities.” W. Va. Code § 29-12-5 immunity for discretionary acts The Board of Risk and Insurance that do not violate clearly Governmental Tort Claims Management has control over all insurance State Board of Risk established rights and laws. Act. covering State property, activities and and Insurance Discretionary acts that do Management must W. Va. Code § 29-12-1 to § responsibilities. violate clearly established laws purchase insurance 29-12-1 (1957). Claim must be brought Each policy insuring the State must provide which occur outside of the which “shall provide against State within that the insurer is barred and estopped from Article VI, § 35 of the West public official’s scope of that the insurer shall two years after cause relying upon the constitutional immunity of WEST VIRGINIA Virginia Constitution employment strip the official of be barred and of action arose. W. Va. the State of West Virginia against claims or provides immunity to his or her qualified immunity, estopped from relying Code § 29-12A-6(a). suits. State. “The State of West but the State entity retains its upon immunity.” The State is protected from suits by Virginia shall never be immunity. Limited by insurance made defendant in any purchasing adequate insurance coverage. If the official’s offending acts or coverage purchased court of law or equity.” omissions occur within the W. Va. Code § 29-12-5(a). by State Board of Risk scope of the official’s Where policy is silent on whether State and and Insurance employment, both the State its insurer can claim the benefit of immunity, Management. entity and the official lose their the immunity of the State is determined by State ex rel. W.Va. immunity. the qualified immunity of a public executive Dept. of Transp., official whose acts or omissions give rise to Highways Division v. the case. Parkulo v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. Madden, 453 S.E.2d & Parole, 483 S.E.2d 507 (W. Va. 1996). (W. Va. 1994).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 38 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Three exceptions to immunity: (1) Known danger exception: Situation so $50,000 for claims dangerous that it is clear the police officer or against municipal State employee required to act in certain entities and their The State and its employees way; employees; no may be sued for “an act (2) Ministerial duty exception: State punitive damages Claims Against growing out of or committed in employee required by law to act in specific allowed. Wis. Stat. § 893.80(3). Governmental Bodies, Written notice of the course of the discharge of way. (e.g., Wis. Stat. § 346.03 says Officers and Employees. claim must be served the officer’s, employee’s or emergency vehicles given certain privileges $250,000 for claims Wis. Stat. §§ 893.80-.83 within 120 days. Wis. agent's duties.” Wis. Stat. § when light and siren on); and against the State and (1987). Stat. § 893.80(1d)(a) 893.82(3). (3) Willful and wanton acts. its employees; no WISCONSIN Qualified immunity for acts (for municipal entities With respect to claims against Lodi v. Progressive, 646 N.W.2d 314 (Wis. punitive damages done in exercise of and employees); Wis. governmental entities, “so far 2002). allowed. Wis. Stat. § legislative, quasi- Stat. § 893.82(3) (for as governmental responsibility 893.82(6). the State and its State employee is liable for performance of legislative, judicial or for torts is concerned, the rule $250,000 limit for employees). ministerial, not discretionary duties. Is quasi-judicial functions. is liability - the exception is ministerial only when it is absolute, certain negligent operation of (i.e., discretion). immunity.” Holytz v. City of and imperative, involving merely the any municipal (except Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26, 39, performance of a specific task when the law vehicles not required 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962). imposes, prescribes and defines the time, to be registered mode and occasion for its performance with [$50,000] per § such certainty that nothing remains for 345.05(1)(bm)). Wis. judgment or discretion.” Pries v. McMillon, Stat. § 345.05. 784 N.W.2d 648 (Wis. 2010).

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 39 Last Updated 1/5/21 TORT CLAIMS ACT STATE NOTICE DEADLINES CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS (None or Citation) Written Notice of Claim must be Claims allowed for: The WGCA abolishes all judicially created Personal Injury: presented with two (2) (1) Operating motor vehicle: categories such as governmental or $250,000 Per Person; Wyoming Governmental years. Wyo. Stat. § 1- Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-105. proprietary functions and discretionary or $500,000 Per 39-113. Claims Act (WGCA). (2) Operating building or park: ministerial acts previously used by the courts Occurrence Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-39-101 to Compliance with Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-106. to determine immunity or liability. State can purchase Notice of Claim 121 (1979). (3) Airport: Wyo. Stat. § 1-39- Exclusions from the waiver of liability are liability insurance in requirement no longer 107 listed at W.S. 1-39-120: which case limits are Except as provided in the has to be alleged in (1) defect in plan or design of bridge, culvert, extended to match WYOMING WGCA, a governmental complaint. Brown v. (4) Operating public utilities highway, road, street, sidewalk or parking limits of policy. entity (i.e., state or local City of Casper, 248 (gas, electric, water, etc.) and lot; Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-118. government body) is P.3d 1136 (Wyo. ground transportation: Wyo. granted immunity from 2011). Stat. § 1-39-108. (2) failure to construct or reconstruct bridge, Property Damage: culvert, etc.; and liability for any tort. Wyo. Suit must be filed (5) Operating hospital: Wyo. Claim must be less Stat. § 1-39-104. within one (1) year of Stat. § 1-39-109. (3) maintenance, including maintenance to than $500. written Notice of (6) Torts of police: Wyo. Stat. § compensate for weather conditions, of any Wyo. Stat. § 1-39- Claim. Wyo. Stat. § 1- 1-39-112. bridge, culvert, etc. 118(f). 39-114.

These materials and other materials promulgated by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. may become outdated or superseded as time goes by. If you should have questions regarding the current applicability of any topics contained in this publication or any publications distributed by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C., please contact Gary Wickert at [email protected]. This publication is intended for the clients and friends of Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. This information should not be construed as legal advice concerning any factual situation and representation of insurance companies and\or individuals by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. on specific facts disclosed within the attorney\client relationship. These materials should not be used in lieu thereof in anyway.

WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 40 Last Updated 1/5/21