When State Does not Buy Insurance it Does not Waive Sovereign Immunity
Post 4854
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g38dnGuj, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gQsVJgXn and at https://lnkd.in/gHJ_Hij9, and https://zalma.com/blog.
Plaintiffs appealed from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the City of Winston-Salem (“the City”).
In Livingstone Flomeh-Mawutor, Georgina Michael Shenjere and Konsikrated Moringa Farms d/b/a More Than Manna v. City Of Winston-Salem, No. COA23-809, Court of Appeals of North Carolina (August 6, 2024) the Court of Appeals unsuccessfully sought evidence of waiver of sovereign Immunity.
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2019, Plaintiffs applied for a $100,000 loan via the City’s small business loan program.
In August 2019, Flomeh-Mawutor allegedly received verbal confirmation from Steven Harrison, a small business development specialist for the City, that Plaintiffs’ loan request had been approved and that a written letter of approval would be sent the following week. Plaintiffs allege that “Harrison was . . . in routine communication” with Plaintiffs over the ensuing months and repeatedly promised that the loan would close soon.
The loan eventually closed on 2 July 2020, when Plaintiffs signed, inter alia, a loan agreement with the City. On 14 August 2020, the City disbursed the loan proceeds to Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs claim to have lost significant business opportunities and goodwill as a result of the delay in their receipt of the funds.
Plaintiffs sued the City. The City moved for summary judgment which was granted.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Tort Claims
Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a county or municipal corporation is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent waiver of immunity. The North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that a governmental function is an activity that is discretionary, political, legislative, or public in nature and performed for the public good on behalf of the State rather than for itself, while a proprietary function is one that is commercial or chiefly for the private advantage of the compact community.
The first step in determining whether a function is proprietary or governmental is whether, and to what degree, the legislature has addressed the issue. Nevertheless, if an action has been designated as governmental or proprietary in nature by the legislature, that is the end of the inquiry.
The City asserted that at the time that the City’s small business loan program loaned the $100,000 to Plaintiffs, the North Carolina General Assembly had specifically indicated that this expenditure of funds for community development was a governmental activity.
Regarding this second step, the City asserts that the money to operate the City’s small business loan program comes from HUD block grants relating to Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas. Since the program or activity in this case can only be provided by a governmental agency, the City concluded that it is necessarily governmental.
WAS IMMUNITY WAIVED?
It is well established that a city can waive its immunity by purchasing liability insurance. However, the City’s risk manager averred that the City had neither purchased nor had in effect any liability insurance to cover such claims as are alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint. As Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege that the City waived its governmental immunity, the tort claims cannot survive the City’s assertion of the immunity affirmative defense.
Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the City’s favor as to Plaintiffs’ tort claims.
Breach of Contract
Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, rather than claims sounding in tort, a “local government . . . waives its governmental immunity when it enters into a valid contract, to the extent of that contract. However, Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Letter promising funding was a valid contract. Therefore, the City had not waived its governmental immunity from suit, and Plaintiffs cannot overcome the City’s affirmative defense. Affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Suing a governmental entity is often difficult when the governmental immunity defense is raised. Tort claims are only waived when the public entity obtains insurance or there is some other affirmative statement of waiver of the immunity. None existed in this case and the summary judgment was affirmed.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg;
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
