defense of governmental immunity in North Carolina

2018App. 466 , 468, 466 S.E.2d 281 , 283 (1996) (recognizing that "orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right").

2013App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (“orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right”), aff’d per curiam, 344 N.C. 729 , 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996).

2021The insurance policy at issue there contained the following exclusion: “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which, after the defense[] is asserted, a court of competent jurisdiction determines the defense of governmental immunity not to be applicable.” Id. at 596 , 655 S.E.2d at 923 (alteration omitted).

2021The insurance policy at issue there contained the following exclusion: “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which, after the defense[] is asserted, a court of competent jurisdiction determines the defense of governmental immunity not to be applicable.” Id. at 596 , 655 S.E.2d at 923 (alteration omitted).

2006See Paquette v. County of Durham, 155 N.C.App. 415 , 418, 573 S.E.2d 715 , 717 (2002) (citation omitted) (stating that, "[i]n order to overcome a defense of governmental immunity, the complaint must specifically allege a waiver of governmental immunity.

2006See Paquette v. County of Durham, 155 N.C.App. 415 , 418, 573 S.E.2d 715 , 717 (2002) (citation omitted) (stating that, "[i]n order to overcome a defense of governmental immunity, the complaint must specifically allege a waiver of governmental immunity.

2005Gen.Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1) (2004); Derwort v. Polk County, 129 N.C.App. 789, 790-91 , 501 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1998) (a substantial right was affected where Polk County asserted the public duty doctrine); Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C.App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1996) ("[W]e have held that orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right.").

2005Gen.Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1) (2004); Derwort v. Polk County, 129 N.C.App. 789, 790-91 , 501 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1998) (a substantial right was affected where Polk County asserted the public duty doctrine); Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C.App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1996) ("[W]e have held that orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right.").

2022The Town possesses an insurance policy covering tort liability; however, the policy contains the following “Preservation of Governmental Immunity” clause: “This insurance applies to the tort liabilities of any insured only to the extent that such tort liability is not subject to any defense of governmental immunity under North Carolina law.” ¶ 14 We held that this exact language precludes waiver and “preserves the defense of governmental immunity” in Hart v. Brienza, 246 N.C. App. 426, 434 , 784 S.E.2d 211, 217 (2016).

2022The Town possesses an insurance policy covering tort liability; however, the policy contains the following “Preservation of Governmental Immunity” clause: “This insurance applies to the tort liabilities of any insured only to the extent that such tort liability is not subject to any defense of governmental immunity under North Carolina law.” ¶ 14 We held that this exact language precludes waiver and “preserves the defense of governmental immunity” in Hart v. Brienza, 246 N.C. App. 426, 434 , 784 S.E.2d 211, 217 (2016).

2021Bd. of Educ., 154 N.C. App. 357, 360 , 573 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2002) (citation omitted).

2021Bd. of Educ., 154 N.C. App. 357, 360 , 573 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2002) (citation omitted).

2021Coates v. Durham Cnty., 266 N.C. App. 271, 273 , 831 S.E.2d 392, 394 (2019). ¶8 Defendants assert as the sole ground for appellate review that “the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on the defense of governmental immunity affects a substantial right and therefore is immediately appealable.” “[I]t is well- established that the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on governmental immunity affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable[.]” Lucas v. Swain Cnty.

2021Coates v. Durham Cnty., 266 N.C. App. 271, 273 , 831 S.E.2d 392, 394 (2019). ¶8 Defendants assert as the sole ground for appellate review that “the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on the defense of governmental immunity affects a substantial right and therefore is immediately appealable.” “[I]t is well- established that the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on governmental immunity affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable[.]” Lucas v. Swain Cnty.

2021Baker v. Smith, 224 N.C. App. 423, 434 , 737 S.E.2d 144, 151 ; Phillips v. Gray, 163 N.C. App. 52, 56-57 , 592 S.E.2d 229, 232 (2004); Summey, 142 N.C. App. at 691 , 544 S.E.2d at 265 .

2021Baker v. Smith, 224 N.C. App. 423, 434 , 737 S.E.2d 144, 151 ; Phillips v. Gray, 163 N.C. App. 52, 56-57 , 592 S.E.2d 229, 232 (2004); Summey, 142 N.C. App. at 691 , 544 S.E.2d at 265 .

2021“A county is also generally immune from suit for intentional torts of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions.” Fuller v. Wake Cnty., 254 N.C. App. 32, 39 , 802 S.E.2d 106, 111 (2017) (citation omitted). ¶ 15 Sheriffs, sheriff’s deputies, and jailers have all been recognized as public officials who may avail themselves of the defense of governmental immunity.

2021“A county is also generally immune from suit for intentional torts of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions.” Fuller v. Wake Cnty., 254 N.C. App. 32, 39 , 802 S.E.2d 106, 111 (2017) (citation omitted). ¶ 15 Sheriffs, sheriff’s deputies, and jailers have all been recognized as public officials who may avail themselves of the defense of governmental immunity.

2021See Cnty. of Durham, 181 N.C. App. at 349 (reasoning that, “[b]ecause the counties derive their sovereign immunity and all other powers and authority from the State . . . the counties’ sovereign immunity cannot be superior to that of the State”). a defense of sovereign immunity.

2021See Cnty. of Durham, 181 N.C. App. at 349 (reasoning that, “[b]ecause the counties derive their sovereign immunity and all other powers and authority from the State . . . the counties’ sovereign immunity cannot be superior to that of the State”). a defense of sovereign immunity.

2016See Petroleum Traders Corp. v. State, 190 N.C.App. 542 , 545, 660 S.E.2d 662 , 664 (2008) ( "Preliminarily, we note that although [the] Defendants' appeal is interlocutory, it is properly before us because orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right." (citation and quotations omitted)).

2016See Petroleum Traders Corp. v. State, 190 N.C.App. 542 , 545, 660 S.E.2d 662 , 664 (2008) ( "Preliminarily, we note that although [the] Defendants' appeal is interlocutory, it is properly before us because orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right." (citation and quotations omitted)).

2013App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (“orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right”), aff’d per curiam, 344 N.C. 729 , 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996).

2013App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (“orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right”), aff’d per curiam, 344 N.C. 729 , 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996).

2009Clark, 114 N.C.

2005App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (“[0]rders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right.”), aff’d per curiam, 344 N.C. 729 , 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996); Clark v. Red Bird Cab Co., 114 N.C.

2024See Wray, 370 N.C. at 47 (cleaned up).

2024Absent such an allegation, the complaint fails to state a cause of action.” Id. (citation omitted).

2022See, e.g., Magana, 183 N.C. App. at 148-49, 645 S.E.2d at 92-93; Doe v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 222 N.C. App. 359 , 731 S.E.2d 245 (2012).

2022See, e.g., Magana, 183 N.C. App. at 148-49, 645 S.E.2d at 92-93; Doe v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 222 N.C. App. 359 , 731 S.E.2d 245 (2012).

2017Absent such an allegation, the complaint fails to state a cause of action." Fabrikant v. Currituck County , 174 N.C.App. 30 , 38, 621 S.E.2d 19 , 25 (2005) (quoting Paquette v. County of Durham , 155 N.C.App. 415 , 418, 573 S.E.2d 715 , 717 (2002) (citations omitted), disc. rev. denied , 357 N.C. 165 , 580 S.E.2d 695 (2003) ); accord **48 Hinson v. City of Greensboro , 232 N.C.App. 204 , 210, 753 S.E.2d 822 , 827 (2014).

2017Absent such an allegation, the complaint fails to state a cause of action." Fabrikant v. Currituck County , 174 N.C.App. 30 , 38, 621 S.E.2d 19 , 25 (2005) (quoting Paquette v. County of Durham , 155 N.C.App. 415 , 418, 573 S.E.2d 715 , 717 (2002) (citations omitted), disc. rev. denied , 357 N.C. 165 , 580 S.E.2d 695 (2003) ); accord **48 Hinson v. City of Greensboro , 232 N.C.App. 204 , 210, 753 S.E.2d 822 , 827 (2014).

2015App. 435, 437 , 477 S.E.2d 179, 180 (1996) (citing Hickman v. Fuqua, 108 N.C.

2015App. at 334 , 299 S.E.2d at 780 ). “[I]f the defense of governmental immunity is asserted as grounds for the summary judgment motion, the denial of the motion has been held to affect a substantial right, and the order is immediately appealable[.]” Hallman v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 124 N.C.