Opinion ID: 1391747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dismissal as to defendant-state of wyoming

Text: Appellants correctly urge that the State has, through legislative enactment, waived its sovereign immunity to the extent of the limits of liability insurance carried by the governmental entity, according to the provisions of § 1-39-118(b), W.S. 1977, 1980 Cum.Supp., which is substantially the same as the section it replaced. [4] Appellants further argue that the State's liability insurance, in force during the incident complained of here, covered their claim and thus, to the extent of that coverage, sovereign immunity is not available as a defense to this action. [5] We cannot agree that the injury complained of is covered by insurance. The policy provides coverage for all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the paid employees of the law enforcement agency named in the declaration as follows: Coverage A-Personal Injury Coverage B-Bodily Injury Coverage C-Property Damage However, the policy defines Personal Injury as follows: `Personal Injury' means false arrest, erroneous service of civil papers, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, libel, slander, defamation of character, violation of property rights or deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, or Canada, for which law enforcement officers may be held liable... . The plaintiffs' injury does not, in our opinion, fall within this definition, and we are not presented with authority which would indicate that it does. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' alleged injury does not lie within the policy's definition of property damage. Appellants argue that there are material factual and legal questions relating to the insurance policy which were not and could not be appropriately resolved by a motion to dismiss, and, in this connection, the transcript of the hearing on the motion discloses that the State did not produce the policy until the day of the hearing on the motion. Even so, the policy was considered and the court must have found that it does not cover the alleged injury, in view of the fact that the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss recites that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted since both defendants enjoyed sovereign immunity.