Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Arkansas State Claims Com'n
| Decision Date | 26 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-245,89-245 |
| Parties | FIREMAN'S INSURANCE CO. & D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc., Appellants, v. ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION and Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert R. Ross, Little Rock, Kevin E. Glynn, Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
R.B. Friedlander, Sol. Gen., Robert L. Wilson, Tom G. Lorenzo, Charles Johnson, Little Rock, for appellees.
This action commenced as a claim filed by appellants with the Arkansas Claims Commission.
Potashnik Corporation and Sajan Construction Corporation contracted with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department for certain highway construction. Following default of the original contractors, Fireman's Insurance Company, as surety on the contractor's performance bond, retained Blattner and Sons, Inc., to complete the projects. During completion of construction, disputes arose between Fireman's and Blattner on the one hand and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department on the other, over costs and damages alleged to have occurred during completion, for which Fireman's and Blattner claimed entitlement from the department.
A complaint was filed with the Arkansas State Claims Commission and the hearing was held at which Fireman's and Blattner were afforded an opportunity to prove their claim. A complete transcript of that hearing was made and preserved. The Claims Commission subsequently issued its written order finding no improper action on the part of the Highway and Transportation Department and denied the claim in its entirety.
From that order the appellant petitioned the circuit court for review under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and subsequently filed in circuit court a petition for writ of certiorari seeking a reversal of the Commission's order and entry of judgment, or in the alternative, a de novo jury trial or oral hearing and written briefs. The appellees moved to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari and petition for Administrative Procedure Act review. After a hearing the motion was granted and the petitions dismissed. From this order of dismissal, Fireman's and Blattner bring this appeal.
Though the appellants make compelling arguments, we are persuaded that the sovereign immunity granted by the Constitution of the State of Arkansas bars an action against the state and that the procedure for hearing claims as established by the General Assembly meets due process requirements and that the order of the circuit court should be affirmed.
Six alleged errors are asserted by appellant: (1) the Administrative Procedures Act applies here and judicial review from the Claims Commission should therefore be granted, (2) Arkansas case law dictates a review of the Claims Commission decisions by certiorari to the circuit court; (3) sovereign immunity would not be violated by review under either the Administrative Procedure Act or on certiorari; (4) the circuit court was in error in holding that the Claims Commission is an arm of the General Assembly; (5) the Claims Commission's order and the court's denial of review is violative of appellant's due process rights; (6) the Claims Commission's order and the dismissal by the court of appellant's petition for review is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers.
In holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity as dictated by the Arkansas Constitution and interpreted by a long line of case law bars the relief sought by appellant, the first five of appellant's points will be considered together. The Constitution of Arkansas provides that the state of Arkansas shall never be made a defendant in any of her courts. Arkansas Constitution of 1874, Article 5, Section 20. The completeness of the intent of such immunity is best illustrated by the long and unequivocal line of cases expressly recognizing and protecting the immunity. As early as Pitcock v. State, 91 Ark. 527, 121 S.W. 742 (1909), this court held that the constitutional prohibition was not merely declaratory that the state could not be sued without her consent, but that all suits against the state were expressly forbidden. Further, where the pleadings show that the action is, in effect, one against the state, the trial court acquires no jurisdiction.
Extending this immunity to its next logical step, we held that where a suit is brought against an agency of the state with relation to some matter in which the defendant represents the state in action and liability, and the state, though not a party of record, is the real party in interest so that a judgment for plaintiff would operate to control the action of the state or to subject the state to liability, the action is, in effect, one against the state and prohibited by the constitutional bar. Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S.W.2d 235 (1938). See also, Beaulieu v. Gray, 288 Ark. 395, 705 S.W.2d 880 (1986).
To further illustrate the intent of the General Assembly to keep and maintain a doctrine of complete sovereign immunity, this court, in 1979, while recognizing the complete immunity enjoyed by the state for the acts of its officers and employees, held that in the absence of specific legislation extending immunity to those officers and employees, they were not individually protected under the umbrella of the state's immunity. At the very next session of the legislature, a statute was passed extending the state's immunity to its officers and employees in the absence of malicious acts. Ark.Code Ann. § 19-10-305 (1987).
The only exception to total and complete sovereign immunity from claims which has been recognized by this court occurs when the state is the moving party seeking specific relief. In that instance the state is prohibited from raising the defense of sovereign immunity as a defense to a counterclaim or offset. Parker v. Moore, 222 Ark. 811, 262 S.W.2d 891 (1953).
In addition to Article 5 of the Constitution invoking sovereign immunity in relation to actions against the state, the framers of the Constitution included a subsequent provision stating that the General Assembly shall provide for payment of all just and legal debts of the state. Arkansas Constitution of 1874, Article 16, Section 2. For many years these debts, after processing by the legislature, were paid by special acts of the General Assembly for claimants the legislature deemed deserving. As the state grew and the legislative demands increased, the General Assembly was apparently unable to devote sufficient time to the investigation and action required in handling each individual claim. The answer was passage of the first Claims Commission Act in 1933. A similar act was passed each two years thereafter until Act 53 of the 1945 General Assembly was enacted, creating the Board of Fiscal Control, the first continuing body to consider whether the individual claims against the state were "just and legal debts" which should be honored and worthy of recommendation to the General Assembly for the appropriation of funds for payment.
In 1949 the General Assembly created the State Claims Commission by Act 462 of 1949, which granted to the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the state and its agencies, departments and institutions (with certain exceptions not here involved). Section 6 of Act 462 provided that "[t]he action taken by the Commission with respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Evangeline Aka v Jefferson Hospital Assoc.
...Ark. 255, 258, 943 S.W.2d 230, 232 (1997) (citing Smith v. Denton, 320 Ark. 253, 895 S.W.2d 550 (1995); Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 301 Ark. 451, 784 S.W.2d 771, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824(1990)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity is rigid, and, as such, the immunit......
-
Atu et al v. Link et al
...the State and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Grine v. Board of Trustees, supra.; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 301 Ark. 451, 784 S.W.2d 771 (1990); Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S.W.2d 235 In the present case, the appellees petitioned the chance......
-
Griffen v. Ark. Judicial Discipline Com'n
...See Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 333 Ark. 159, 166, 970 S.W.2d 198, 200 (1998) (quoting Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 301 Ark. 451, 458, 784 S.W.2d 771, 775, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824, 112 S.Ct. 76, 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990)). Under Canon 4(C)(1), the judge wou......
-
Buckley v. Ray
...State Claims Commission may be appealed only to the General Assembly." Id.§ 19-10-211(a); see also Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Ark. State Claims Comm'n, 301 Ark. 451, 784 S.W.2d 771, 775 (1990) ("The act creating the Claims Commission clearly creates it as an arm of the legislature, reporting sol......