Opinion ID: 1732677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the airport authority's purchase of liability insurance is relevant.

Text: ¶ 13. Spencer contends that the $5 million insurance policy purchased by the Airport Authority is evidence that it was aware that it had the power to be sued. Spencer argues that the Airport Authority, due to its purchase of liability insurance, should be equitably estopped from raising defenses that assert it is immune from lawsuit. ¶ 14. We find that the purchase of liability insurance does not subject the Airport Authority to liability suits and the potential liability of the Airport Authority is not a function of its insurance coverage. The MTCA, not an insurance policy which may be purchased, governs to what extent governmental entities have potential liability. L.W. v. McComb Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 754 So.2d 1136, 1144-45 (Miss.1999) (Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-17(4) allows for the purchase of insurance by a sovereign which then covers claims in excess of the amounts set by Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-15 to the extent of the policy. This provision does not limit the exclusions or exemptions enumerated in Section 11-46-9.) The purchase of insurance was relevant prior to the adoption of the MTCA, see, e.g., L.W., 754 So.2d at 1143 (Prior to the enactment of the MTCA, a defendant sovereign was estopped from asserting sovereign immunity if it had purchased a public liability policy), but now the purchase of insurance is not relevant to the issue of whether a governmental entity is subject to the MTCA. See, e.g., McGrath v. City of Gautier, 794 So.2d 983, 986 (Miss.2001) (The purchase of insurance by a governmental entity covers claims in excess of the statutory cap. It does not limit enumerated exclusions or exemptions from the waiver of sovereign immunity.).