Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the parents’ claims against the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services under the State Tort Claims Act. The court held that the claims arose from misrepresentation or deceit because a state employee intentionally withheld information about a potential adoptee’s sexual abuse history. The court also held that denial of summary judgment did not establish law of the case and that the State adequately pleaded the immunity defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's earlier denial of summary judgment triggered the law-of-the-case doctrine or precluded the court from deciding sovereign immunity after trial.
- Whether the State sufficiently pleaded the misrepresentation and deceit exception to sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense.
- Whether the misrepresentation exception to the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act applies to claims involving personal injury and noncommercial transactions.
- Whether claims labeled as failure to warn, failure to disclose, or negligent supervision can avoid the misrepresentation exception when the gravamen of the claims is the communication of misinformation.
- Whether the parents' claims were barred by sovereign immunity under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act.
Holdings
- A denial of summary judgment is an interlocutory, nonfinal order that does not decide factual issues or propositions of law and therefore does not trigger the law-of-the-case doctrine or preclude later consideration of immunity at trial.
- The State sufficiently pleaded the misrepresentation and deceit exception because its answer and the pretrial order gave the parents fair notice of the defense.
- The misrepresentation exception to the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act applies to claims for personal injury as well as economic injury and is not limited to misrepresentations made in business or commercial transactions.
- Claims alleging failure to warn or disclose cannot avoid the misrepresentation exception through artful pleading when their substance is the communication or withholding of information on which the plaintiffs relied.
- The negligent supervision claim was also barred because it was inextricably linked to the underlying misrepresentation and did not allege an injury independent of that caused by the misinformation.
Key quotations
“The overruling of a motion for summary judgment does not decide any issue of fact or proposition of law affecting the subject matter of the litigation, but merely indicates that the court was not convinced by the record that there was not a genuine issue as to any material fact or that the party offering the motion was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (64)
“We agree with those courts finding that the misrepresentation exception can apply to claims for personal injuries as well as economic injuries and to claims not involving business transactions.” (88)
“No matter how the parents try to frame their complaint, their claim arises out of a misrepresentation.” (93)
Factual background
A state employee told prospective adoptive parents that a child had no sexual abuse history, despite evidence that she knew of allegations and a history of sexual acting out. The child was placed in the parents' home and later sexually abused their minor child. The parents sued the State under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act, characterizing their claims as negligence based on failure to warn, failure to disclose, and negligent supervision.
Procedural history
The parents sued under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence based on failure to warn or disclose information and negligent supervision. The district court overruled the State's motion for summary judgment, then held a bench trial and entered judgment for the State, concluding that the claims arose out of misrepresentation and were barred by sovereign immunity. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.