Magana v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Decision Date | 01 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. COA06-1193.,COA06-1193. |
Citation | 645 S.E.2d 91 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Angelica MAGANA Guardian ad Litem for Ivan Magana, a minor, Plaintiff, v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION and David Roberts, Defendants. |
Osborne Law Offices, P.C., by Curtis C. Osborne, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellants.
Helms, Mullis & Wicker, PLLC, by James G. Middlebrooks and Amy Reeder Worley, Charlotte, for defendant-appellees.
Plaintiffs brought this action alleging various claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and David Roberts, a Behavior Management Technician employed by the Board. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for physical injuries inflicted upon the minor plaintiff, who suffers from Asperger's Disorder (a mild form of autism), when Roberts attempted to restrain him by grabbing and twisting his left arm. Defendants answered, denying any improper conduct on Roberts' part, and asserting affirmative defenses including, inter alia, governmental immunity. In response to a defense motion, plaintiffs provided a Statement of Monetary Relief Sought indicating that they were seeking damages totaling $1,250,000.
Defendants then moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with an affidavit from Scott H. Denham, the Risk Manager for the City of Charlotte, who administers insurance and self-insured retention programs for defendant Board of Education. In his affidavit, Mr. Denham provided a copy of the Board's Comprehensive General Liability Insurance Policy covering the applicable period, which contained a self-insured retention limit of $1,000,000. The policy further provided that "it is not intended by the insured to waive its governmental immunity as allowed by North Carolina Statutes § 115C-42." Mr. Denham stated that the policy provided no coverage to the Board or Mr. Roberts for any amount up to $1,000,000 and that the Board carried no other insurance which might be applicable to provide coverage for the events alleged in the complaint for any amount below $1,000,000.
The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the Board's immunity or Roberts' official capacity immunity, and dismissed plaintiffs' claims against the Board and against Roberts to the extent he was sued in his official capacity. The court reserved its ruling on any claims asserted against Roberts in his individual capacity, which plaintiffs subsequently dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in its conclusion that defendants did not waive immunity through the Board's purchase of a liability insurance policy providing coverage for damages in excess of the Board's self-insured retention of $1,000,000. We hold that the trial court did not err and affirm the order granting summary judgment.
The State and its agencies have traditionally enjoyed complete immunity from being sued in court. Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 309-10, 222 S.E.2d 412, 417 (1976). With respect to immunity, a county board of education is a governmental agency, and is therefore not liable in a tort or negligence action except to the extent that it has waived its governmental immunity pursuant to statutory authority. Beatty v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 99 N.C.App. 753, 755, 394 S.E.2d 242, 244 (1990). However, a board of education may waive this immunity by purchasing liability insurance. See N.C. Gen. Stat § 115C-42 (2005). That statute reads, in pertinent part:
Any local board of education, by securing liability insurance as hereinafter provided, is hereby authorized and empowered to waive its governmental immunity from liability for damage by reason of death or injury to person or property caused by the negligence or tort of any agent or employee of such board of education when acting within the scope of his authority or within the course of his employment. Such immunity shall be deemed to have been waived by the act of obtaining such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pettiford v. City of Greensboro
...terms of the insurance contract preclude any waiver of governmental immunity, relying on Magana v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 183 N.C.App. 146, 148-49, 645 S.E.2d 91, 93 (2007).14 (Doc. 32; Tr. of Oral Argument at 57.) In Magana, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that ......
-
Johnson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.
...of Educ., No. 3:16-CV-528-GCM, 2017 WL 2115108, at *3 (W.D. N.C. May 15, 2017); see also Magana v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 645 S.E.2d 91, 92 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (“a county board of education is a governmental agency, and is therefore not liable in a tort or negligence action ex......
-
Davis v. Blanchard
...North Carolina Court of Appeals explored this issue in the board-of-education context in Magana v. Charlotte – Mecklenburg Board of Education, 183 N.C.App. 146, 645 S.E.2d 91 (2007). Magana explicitly states that “[o]ur courts have strictly construed N.C.G.S. § 115C–42 against waiver,” and ......
-
Barrett v. Bd. of Educ. of Johnston Cnty.
...except to the extent that it has waived its governmental immunity pursuant to statutory authority.” Magana v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 183 N.C.App. 146, 645 S.E.2d 91, 92 (2007). A board of education may waive this immunity by purchasing liability insurance. Id.Any local board of......