waiver of sovereign immunity in Maine

2005See Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 545 (Me.1978). [¶ 29] We have also held that a municipality does not have governmental immunity from damages for unjust enrichment, see A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 657 A.2d 323, 324-25 (Me.1995) (AFAB III), and a municipality is liable for post-judgment interest on those damages, see AFAB IV, 2001 ME 128, ¶¶ 12, 13 , 777 A.2d at 836 .

2005See Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 545 (Me.1978). [¶ 29] We have also held that a municipality does not have governmental immunity from damages for unjust enrichment, see A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 657 A.2d 323, 324-25 (Me.1995) (AFAB III), and a municipality is liable for post-judgment interest on those damages, see AFAB IV, 2001 ME 128, ¶¶ 12, 13 , 777 A.2d at 836 .

2005See Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 545 (Me.1978). [¶ 29] We have also held that a municipality does not have governmental immunity from damages for unjust enrichment, see A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 657 A.2d 323, 324-25 (Me.1995) ( AFAB III ), and a municipality is liable for post-judgment interest on those damages, *1245 see AFAB IV, 2001 ME 128, ¶¶ 12, 13 , 777 A.2d at 836 .

2005See Drake v. Smith, 390 A.2d 541, 545 (Me.1978). [¶ 29] We have also held that a municipality does not have governmental immunity from damages for unjust enrichment, see A.F.A.B., Inc. v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 657 A.2d 323, 324-25 (Me.1995) (AFAB III), and a municipality is liable for post-judgment interest on those damages, see AFAB IV, 2001 ME 128, ¶¶ 12, 13 , 777 A.2d at 836 .

2005The State contracted to pay according to a schedule of contingent fees and nothing more. [¶ 42] Citing Drake, 390 A.2d at 545 , the Court states that: "We have suggested that a general statute allowing the State to enter into contracts implies a waiver of sovereign immunity by the Legislature when the State is sued for breach of that contract." This view may support PRGU's claim for payments earned in accordance with the contract, but it does not support expanding the State's contracted obligation to include interest.

2005The State contracted to pay according to a schedule of contingent fees and nothing more. [¶ 42] Citing Drake, 390 A.2d at 545 , the Court states that: “We have suggested that a general statute allowing the State to enter into contracts implies a waiver of sovereign immunity by the Legislature when the State is sued for breach of that contract.” This view may support PRGU’s claim for payments earned in accordance with the contract, but it does not support expanding the State’s contracted obligation to include interest.

2017The Act also waives immunity “to the limits of the insurance coverage” when the State purchases liability insurance. 14 M.R.S. § 8116 (2016). [¶ 14] We have declared that “a waiver of governmental immunity is not to be implied.” Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 419 (Me. 1987); see also Knowlton v. Attorney Gen., 2009 ME 79, ¶ 12 , 976 A.2d 973 (“Waivers are not generally implied, and even explicit waivers are construed narrowly.”). 5 Where a statute generally authorizes suits against parties that could include government entities, this authorization, without more, is insu

2017The Act also waives immunity “to the limits of the insurance coverage” when the State purchases liability insurance. 14 M.R.S. § 8116 (2016). [¶ 14] We have declared that “a waiver of governmental immunity is not to be implied.” Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 419 (Me. 1987); see also Knowlton v. Attorney Gen., 2009 ME 79, ¶ 12 , 976 A.2d 973 (“Waivers are not generally implied, and even explicit waivers are construed narrowly.”). 5 Where a statute generally authorizes suits against parties that could include government entities, this authorization, without more, is insu

2017For example, Hinckley v. Penobscot Valley Hosp. determined that even though the Maine Health Security Act ("MHSA") was intended to occupy the field of medical malpractice claims brought against health care providers and practitioners, the provision that "any action for damages for injury or death against any health care provider" did not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for hospitals owned and operated by a governmental entity facing malpractice claims. 2002 ME 70 , ~ ~ 8-10, 794 A.2d 643 .

2017For example, Hinckley v. Penobscot Valley Hosp. determined that even though the Maine Health Security Act ("MHSA") was intended to occupy the field of medical malpractice claims brought against health care providers and practitioners, the provision that "any action for damages for injury or death against any health care provider" did not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for hospitals owned and operated by a governmental entity facing malpractice claims. 2002 ME 70 , ~ ~ 8-10, 794 A.2d 643 .

2017The Act also waives immunity “to the limits of the insurance coverage” when the State purchases liability insurance. 14 M.R.S. § 8116 (2016). [¶ 14] We have declared that “a waiver of governmental immunity is not to be implied.” Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 419 (Me. 1987); see also Knowlton v. Attorney Gen., 2009 ME 79, ¶ 12 , 976 A.2d 973 (“Waivers are not generally implied, and even explicit waivers are construed narrowly.”). 5 Where a statute generally authorizes suits against parties that could include government entities, this authorization, without more, is insu

2017See Hinkley v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 2002 ME 70, ¶¶ 6, 9-10, 15 , 794 A.2d 643 ; Young, 535 A.2d at 418 (holding that a statute providing-that a government entity may “sue or be sued” was insufficient to constitute an express waiver); see also Nelson v. Me.

2017See Estate of Hiller, 2014 ME 2, ¶ 18 , 86 A.3d 9 ; Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2009 ME 67, ¶ 8 , 974 A.2d 286 . 6 .

2017See Estate of Hiller, 2014 ME 2, ¶ 18 , 86 A.3d 9 ; Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2009 ME 67, ¶ 8 , 974 A.2d 286 . 6 .