Opinion ID: 2168356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the webbs' cross-appeal

Text: By their cross-appeal, the Webbs contend that the State has waived its general immunity from suit by purchasing two liability insurance policies that cover their claim pursuant to the Act and that the State should not have been dismissed from the case. We disagree. Contrary to the motions filed by Haas and the Authority, the State's motion to dismiss was properly treated as a motion for a summary judgment. M.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Matters outside of the pleadings, the two insurance policies, were before the court and considered by it, and, most importantly, the Webbs did not contend that more discovery was needed on the issue of the State's immunity. See M.R.Civ.P. 12(b). We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment for errors of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was entered ... [and] we `will affirm a summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Oceanside at Pine Point Condominium Owners Assoc. v. Peachtree Doors, Inc., 659 A.2d 267, 269 (Me.1995) (quoting Smith v. School Admin. Dist. No. 58, 582 A.2d 247, 248 (Me.1990) (citations omitted)). The Act confers a general grant of immunity to governmental entities, subject to limited exceptions. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103(1). In addition to the enumerated exceptions to immunity set forth in section 8104-A, none of which applies here, the State waives immunity when it procures liability insurance in areas where it is otherwise immune. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8116. [9] Neither of the insurance policies at issue waives the State's immunity to cover the situation at hand. The first insurance policy contains an express exception excluding coverage for any claim for which the insured has immunity pursuant to the Act. We are unpersuaded by the Webbs' circular argument that the exclusion is ambiguous because section 8116 precludes immunity when the State has insurance. The second insurance policy at issue provides that it will cover all sums the insured legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an accident and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto. The Webbs' claim against the State, however, is not based on bodily injury caused by an accident resulting from the State's ownership or use of an auto. Therefore, the State has not procured insurance to waive immunity within the meaning of section 8116, and its general immunity shields the State from liability on the Webbs' claim pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act. The State's motion to dismiss was properly granted.