Opinion ID: 1423764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Student Life Foundation's Immunity

Text: Autry and White take the position that regardless of WKU's immunity status, SLF is not a governmental agency and that it is clearly acting as a business entity in owning the dormitories and contracting with WKU to operate and manage them. They argue that to shield SLF gives it an unfair business advantage over non-state agency businesses and thus it is performing a proprietary function. However, SLF acts as an alter ego of WKU for purposes of holding title to the dormitory properties and obtaining funding to refurbish them. Every other operational function related to the dormitories has been ceded back to WKU through the Management Agreement. Article IV of the agreement defines the duties of WKU and requires WKU to provide continuous real property services and to manage the premises as residence halls for students. More specifically, Section 4.9 provides that WKU is responsible for all personnel matters. Section 4.10 makes WKU responsible for all housing policies, including those related to curfew, alcohol and drugs, and public access. These are rightfully WKU's duties. In reality SLF serves the University, and acts only on its behalf. SLF has no truly independent existence from WKU. To claim that WKU becomes an agent of SLF because of this arrangement is to elevate form over substance. SLF has no respondeat superior relationship with WKU, so as to make SLF vicariously liable for WKU's acts, because delegating dorm management to WKU is tantamount to WKU delegating to itself. The actual alignment is that WKU is a governmental agency fulfilling the public purpose of higher education by providing residence halls to its students which it manages and controls. It uses SLF as an agent to own property for WKU's purposes. This is all that SLF does. Thus while SLF is an incorporated entity, it exists only to serve WKU, and derives its immunity status through WKU. As an agent or alter ego of WKU, SLF, in its official capacity, is entitled to official immunity because this Court has found that WKU is entitled to governmental immunity. However, SLF was sued directly, on the assumption that it is not a governmental entity at all. This amounts to suing SLF in its individual capacity. In that capacity, SLF is entitled to qualified official immunity, depending upon whether its delegation of management of its dormitory properties to WKU, which included delegation of the security functions at issue, was a discretionary or a ministerial function. See Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 530 (holding that agent of the school board enjoyed qualified official immunity). Under the Articles of Incorporation, at Section IV(3), SLF had the duty to . . . manage . . . real and personal property, including but not limited to, certain student and other residential facilities. . . . If the delegation of those functions was a discretionary act, then SLF, as an agent of WKU, is entitled to immunity, even if SLF was negligent in its delegation. SLF's action in delegating those duties was not controlled by any prescribed rules, nor was it the product of an absolute, certain, and imperative duty. Rather, the delegation was the product of a good faith judgment call that the action would best serve the general functions for which SLF was formed, and was therefore discretionary in nature. As such, SLF was entitled to qualified official immunity. This issue was adequately presented in the record, and the trial court decided it properly by dismissing SLF as a party. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the trial court's dismissal of SLF is reinstated consistent with this opinion. All concur. MINTON, J., not sitting.