Opinion ID: 1659030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Amendment to Answer to Add Affirmative Defenses

Text: Appellants claim that the district court erred in denying their motion to amend their answer during the course of the trial to assert the affirmative defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity. Appellants argue that although pleaded as a failure-to-disclose-information case, Fuhrman's case against appellants at trial was fundamentally based on misrepresentation, and that the State Tort Claims Act does not provide a remedy for actions arising from misrepresentation. See § 81-8,219(4). Appellants acknowledge that sovereign and qualified immunity are affirmative defenses which should be affirmatively pleaded or are considered waived. Lawry v. County of Sarpy, 254 Neb. 193, 575 N.W.2d 605 (1998) (exceptions found in § 81-8,219 are matters of defense which must be pleaded and proved by State). See, also, Jameson v. Liquid Controls Corp., 260 Neb. 489, 618 N.W.2d 637 (2000) (affirmative defense must be successfully pleaded to be considered). Appellants nevertheless assert that they should have been allowed to amend their answer to conform to the proof at trial. In her amended petition, Fuhrman alleged that appellants had failed to disclose information. At trial, Fuhrman offered evidence for the purpose of establishing that appellants had totally failed to disclose the lengthy and recent history pertaining to Jeffrey's violent propensities. Neither Fuhrman's theory of the case nor her evidence was based on misrepresentation, but, rather, on a complete failure to convey the critical information, without an inference that this was deliberately done. A decision to grant or deny an amendment to a pleading rests in the discretion of the trial court. McDonald, supra . The district court did not abuse its discretion in this case. The district court's order of May 1, 2001, states that the action arises out of appellants' failure to inform Immanuel and its employees of Jeffrey's propensities. In the same order, the district court concluded that appellants were negligent in failing to ... inform Immanuel and its employees of [Jeffrey's] violent and dangerous propensities ... when he was admitted to Immanuel. The district court's decision in favor of Fuhrman was based on failure to disclose information. Given the pleadings, the record in this case, and the district court's order, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion for leave to amend their answer. This assignment of error is without merit.