Westbrook v. City of Jackson, 2000-CA-01909-SCT.
Decision Date | 10 October 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 2000-CA-01909-SCT.,2000-CA-01909-SCT. |
Citation | 828 So.2d 196 |
Parties | Jack L. WESTBROOK, Jr., Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Thelma P. Westbrook, Deceased and Cambridge Mutual Insurance Company v. CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi, et al. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Roger Googe, Jackson, attorney for appellants.
J. Anthony Williams, Jackson, attorney for appellees.
Before McRAE, P.J., and DIAZ and EASLEY, JJ.
EASLEY, J., for the Court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 1. On September 14, 1995, this Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part a summary judgment dismissing this lawsuit by the estate of a deceased homeowner and her insurer against the City of Jackson for the loss of a home by fire damage as a result of the lack of water for fire protection. Westbrook v. City of Jackson, 665 So.2d 833 (Miss.1995). This Court directed the trial court to develop a record of what procedures, if any, were used by the City of Jackson (the City) to determine which claims filed against the City would be compensated and which claims would be excluded. Id. at 840. This Court further instructed the trial court to determine if the City's Claims Fund is the equivalent to the City's participation in the Mississippi Municipal Liability Program for purposes of preserving the City's sovereign immunity. Id. at 839.
¶ 2. On remand, the circuit court found that the city did not waive its sovereign immunity by maintaining the Claims Fund, and furthermore, there was no violation of equal protection by maintaining the Claims Fund.
FACTS
¶ 3. In the original appeal, this Court set out the following facts:
Westbrook, 665 So.2d at 835-36.
¶ 4. The case was remanded to the circuit court. The matter was tried, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the City. Westbrook and Cambridge contended at trial that the City operated a taxpayer funded $1,000,000 Claims Fund without any guidelines, rules or procedures thereby waiving any sovereign immunity that the City may have had. They further contended that the maintenance of the City's Claims Fund did not pass equal protection muster.
¶ 5. Kane Ditto (Mayor Ditto) was sworn in as Mayor of Jackson on July 3, 1989. Westbrook filed his claim on October 16, 1989. Mayor Ditto testified that at the time the Westbrook claim was made the City did not maintain a policy of general liability insurance, that claims that were filed with the City were looked at on a case-by-case basis, and that it was generally the City's Legal Department that examined a claim to determine whether the city was exempt from paying a claim by reason of sovereign immunity or some other legal reason. Even though the City's Legal Department could recommend not paying a claim, Mayor Ditto testified that a claim could nevertheless be paid by the City Council. Mayor Ditto further testified that the City was not a member of the Mississippi Municipal Liability Association and that when a claim was filed with the City, it could be ultimately passed and approved for payment based upon the recommendation and the vote of the City Council regardless of the Legal Department's recommendation.
¶ 6. Dale Danks (Mayor Danks), who was Mayor of the City in 1989 when the Westbrook home burned, testified that the Claims Fund that was earmarked to handle claims presented to the City for payment contained from $750,000 to $1,000,000 each year. Mayor Danks testified that claims that were presented to the City for payment under his administration were generally presented to the Legal Department and that the Legal Department's function was to evaluate the claim and determine whether there were immunity defenses and whether in the Legal Department's opinion the City had liability. Mayor Danks testified that after the Legal Department had made its determination a claim would then be presented to the City Council along with the recommendation of the Legal Department. Mayor Danks then testified that there were times that the City Council voted to pay a claim even though the Legal Department recommended that a claim not be paid because of sovereign immunity.
¶ 7. The trial court determined that there was no violation of equal protection by the maintenance of the Claims Fund and that by maintaining the Claims Fund the City did not waive its sovereign immunity. It is from these determinations that Westbrook appeals raising the following issues:
I. Whether the City's maintenance and operation of the Claims Fund preserved the City's sovereign immunity; and
II. Whether the City's operation of the Claims Fund survives equal protection scrutiny.
DISCUSSION
¶ 8. Westbrook argues that the City's maintenance of a Claims Fund without any guidelines,...
To continue reading
Request your trial