O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
(a) The sovereign immunity of local government entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle is waived up to the following limits:
(1) $100,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence, an aggregate amount of $300,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one occurrence, and $50,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property in any one occurrence, for incidents occurring on or after January 1, 2005, and until December 31, 2006;
(2) $250,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence, an aggregate amount of $450,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one occurrence, and $50,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property in any one occurrence, for incidents occurring on or after January 1, 2007, and until December 31, 2007; and
(3) $500,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence, an aggregate amount of $700,000.00 because of bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one occurrence, and $50,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property in any one occurrence, for incidents occurring on or after January 1, 2008.
(b) The sovereign immunity of local government entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle is waived only to the extent and in the manner provided in this chapter and only with respect to actions brought in the courts of this state. This chapter shall not be construed to affect any claim or cause of action otherwise permitted by law and for which the defense of sovereign immunity is not available.
(c) Local government entities shall have no liability for losses resulting from conduct on any part of local government officers or employees which was not within the scope of their official duties or employment.
(d) The waiver provided by this chapter shall be increased to the extent that:
(1) The governing body of the local governmental entity by resolution or ordinance voluntarily adopts a higher waiver;
(2) The local government entity becomes a member of an interlocal risk management agency created pursuant to Chapter 85 of this title to the extent that coverage obtained exceeds the amount of the waiver set forth in this Code section; or
(3) The local government entity purchases commercial liability insurance in an amount in excess of the waiver set forth in this Code section.
(e) Interest prior to judgment may be recovered pursuant to the ‘‘Unliquidated Damages Interest Act’’ as provided for in Code Section 51-12-14; however, any recovery of interest prior to judgment shall be included within the applicable aggregate amount per occurrence as set forth in this Code section.
History
Code 1981, § 36-92-2, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 579, § 3.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2002, a comma was added following ‘‘January 1, 2005’’ in paragraph (a)(1) and following ‘‘January 1, 2007’’ in paragraph (a)(2).
Law reviews. - For survey article on insurance law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 191 (2008). For article, ‘‘What’s the ‘Use’: Vehicle Maintenance Liability Barred by Sovereign Immunity Amendment Intended to Promote Waiver,’’ see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 651 (2018).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Notice to county sheriff. - Trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff ’s claim against the sheriff was barred by the plaintiff ’s failure to provide the Sheriff ’s Office with notice of such claim under O.C.G.A. § 36-11-1 because the plaintiff was legally precluded from even naming the county as the proper defendant, and given that § 36-11-1 did not mandate otherwise, presentment of a claim for which the sheriff can be held vicariously liable must be directed to the sheriff. Moats v. Mendez, 824 S.E.2d 808, No. A18A1721, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 196 (2019). Sovereign immunity not waived. - In an action arising out of an arrest, despite the way the arrestee was treated, the trial court properly dismissed a complaint against a county, and granted summary judgment on the same complaint against a city, on sovereign immunity
grounds since the arrestee failed to show that the immunity had been waived. Scott v. City of Valdosta, 280 Ga. App. 481, 634 S.E.2d 472 (2006). Trial court erred in denying a county’s motion for summary judgment in a driver’s action alleging that the county was negligent for failing to maintain and repair a roadway or failing to warn of a known hazard because there was no evidence that the county waived the county’s sovereign immunity under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2, and there was no evidence that a county vehicle caused the hole in the roadway; the plaintiff, not the defendants, has the burden of establishing that a county has waived sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance protection covering the plaintiff ’s claim. Effingham County v. Rhodes, 307 Ga. App. 504, 705 S.E.2d 856 (2010). Trial court erred in denying a county and a county commissioner summary
judgment in a driver’s action alleging that the county and the commissioner were negligent for failing to maintain and repair a roadway or failing to warn of a known hazard because a suit against the commissioner in the commissioner’s official capacity was a claim against the county, and the commissioner could raise any defense available to the county, including sovereign immunity; the driver advanced no argument that an act of the General Assembly specifically waived the sovereign immunity protecting the commissioner. Effingham County v. Rhodes, 307 Ga. App. 504, 705 S.E.2d 856 (2010). Bus driver failed to show that the waiver of sovereign immunity under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2(a) for the negligent use of motor vehicles applied to the driver’s claims for wrongful discharge, false arrest, and malicious prosecution because the school district’s alleged liability for those claims was not predicated upon the school district’s negligent use of a motor vehicle. Bomia v. Ben Hill County Sch. Dist., 320 Ga. App. 423, 740 S.E.2d 185 (2013). Waiver of immunity. - When a local entity purchases automobile liability insurance in an amount greater than the prescribed limits set forth for a waiver of sovereign immunity under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1 et seq., the entity waives sovereign immunity to the extent of the entity’s insurance coverage as required by O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(b), and the broad definition of ‘‘any motor vehicle’’ set forth in § 33-24-51 applies. Therefore, in a wrongful death and survivor case, a county waived sovereign immunity to the extent of the county’s insurance coverage as required by § 33-24-51(b), and the Georgia legislature did not intend to apply a narrow definition of motor vehicle under O.C.G.A. § 36-92-1 when the case involved an injury caused by a bush hog and a tractor. Gates v. Glass, 291 Ga. 350, 729 S.E.2d 361 (2012). School district waived immunity to extent of insurance covering school bus accident. - In a parent’s action against a school district for the death of the parent’s child as the child tried to board a school bus, although the district had sovereign immunity, the district
waived sovereign immunity to the extent of the district’s purchase of liability insurance pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51(b); the exclusion from the waiver of sovereign immunity for school districts in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2(a) did not extend to the second sentence of § 33-24-51(b). Tift County Sch. Dist. v. Martinez, 331 Ga. App. 423, 771 S.E.2d 117 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1084, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 458 (Ga. 2015). Negligent use of a city or county owned motor vehicle. - In a wrongful death action by a decedent’s estate and the decedent’s children against the county sheriff, the sheriff ’s sovereign immunity was waived pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2(a) because the claim of reckless disregard for proper law enforcement procedures in pursuing a fleeing suspect came within the ambit of a claim for negligent use of a city or county owned motor vehicle. Strength v. Lovett, 311 Ga. App. 35, 714 S.E.2d 723 (2011), cert. denied, No. S11C1794, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 979 (Ga. 2011). Purchase of general liability insurance policy waived immunity for injuries from tar machine. - In a worker’s suit alleging negligence on the part of a county with regard to the county allegedly failing to properly instruct and supervise the worker in the use of a portable tar kettle machine, the trial court erred by granting the county’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings based on sovereign immunity as the worker sufficiently alleged that the machine was a vehicle as contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 33-24-51, which established a waiver of sovereign immunity if the county purchased liability insurance to cover damages and injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles under the county’s management. Hewell v. Walton County, 292 Ga. App. 510, 664 S.E.2d 875 (2008). Injured driver could establish extent of damages caused by collision. - Driver’s employer’s uninsured motorist (UM) coverage was available to the driver because the policy promised to pay sums the driver was ‘‘legally entitled to recover’’ from a UM, even though the driver had collided with a county vehicle and the county’s partial sovereign immunity pre-
vented the driver from establishing in a lawsuit that the driver was legally entitled to recover the full amount of the driver’s damages from the county. FCCI Ins. Co. v. McLendon Enters., 297 Ga. 136, 772 S.E.2d 651 (2015). Claim against sheriff ’s deputy barred. - Trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the deputy on the ground that the plaintiff ’s tort claim was barred by O.C.G.A. § 36-92-3(a) because the deputy was not a governmental entity; rather, the deputy was an employee of the county sheriff ’s
department, was on duty, and was driving a county-owned patrol vehicle when the accident that injured the plaintiff occurred; thus, the deputy was not subject to liability for the accident and the claims against the deputy were barred. Moats v. Mendez, 824 S.E.2d 808, No. A18A1721, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 196 (2019). Cited in Weaver v. City of Statesboro, 288 Ga. App. 32, 653 S.E.2d 765 (2007); Bd. of Comm’rs v. Johnson, 311 Ga. App. 867, 717 S.E.2d 272 (2011); Primas v. City of Milledgeville, 296 Ga. 584, 769 S.E.2d 326 (2015).
Notes of Decisions
Columbus Consol. Gov't v. Woody, 802 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 100× “”3 Effective in 2005, however, the legislature amended the statute to change fundamentally how the waiver of sovereign immunity worked, and it did so largely by adding a new first sentence to subsection (b) and by adding several related new code sections, most importantly, OCGA…”
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of Coll. Park, 313 Ga. 294 (Ga. 2022).
· cites it 104× “As the parties agree, pursuant to OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) (3), the sovereign immunity of local government entities is automatically waived up to $700,000 in this instance, regardless of whether the City has a liability insurance policy.”
Mcbrayer v. Scarbrough, 317 Ga. 387 (Ga. 2023).
· cites it 22× “She claimed that the incident arose from the deputies’ negligent use of a motor vehicle, as contemplated by OCGA § 36-92-2, and that the patrol car was a “covered vehicle,” as that phrase is used in OCGA §§ 33-24-51; 36-92-1; and 36-92-2.”
Moats Et Al. v. Mendez., 824 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 20× “”7 And one such waiver is illustrated by OCGA § 36-92-2 (a), which provides: “The sovereign immunity of local government entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle is waived up to the following limits.”
Glass v. Gates, 716 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 12× “The first sentence of subsection (b) provides that sovereign immunity is waived for losses arising out of claims for the negligent use of a “covered motor vehicle” as provided in OCGA § 36-92-2. The second sentence of subsection (b) provides that sovereign immunity is waived…”
Davis v. Morrison Et Al., 810 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “" 13 An example of such a waiver is illustrated by OCGA § 36-92-2 (a), which provides: "The sovereign immunity of local government entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle is waived up to the following limits.”
Gates v. Glass, 729 S.E.2d 361 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 10× “7 The second tier, enacted by OCGA § 33-24-51 (b), and as revised in 2002, provides for the waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent a local entity purchases liability insurance in an amount exceeding the *353 limits prescribed in OCGA § 36-92-2. It follows that, where, as…”
McCobb v. Clayton Cnty., 710 S.E.2d 207 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “” OCGA § 36-92-2 in turn provides for the monetary limits of the waiver.”
Tift Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Martinez, 771 S.E.2d 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 18× “5 *427 OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) provides that “[t]he sovereign immunity of local government entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle is waived up to [certain] limits,” regardless of the purchase of motor vehicle insurance.”
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nancy Lewis, 802 S.E.2d 844 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) (3) provides for an automatic $500,000 waiver of immunity for “bodily injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence” regardless of whether the local government entity purchases any insurance .”
Nichols v. Prather, 650 S.E.2d 380 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Whenever a municipal corporation, a county, or any other political subdivision of this state shall purchase the insurance authorized by subsection (a) of this Code section to provide liability coverage for the negligence of any duly authorized officer, agent, servant, attorney,…”
Strength v. Lovett, 714 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” 7 A “covered motor vehicle” is any motor vehicle owned, leased or rented by the county, OCGA § 36-92-1 (2), and the Sheriff does not dispute that the patrol car in which his deputy pursued Clark was a “covered motor vehicle.”
Wingler Et Al. v. White Et Al., 808 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “More specifically, the plaintiffs rely on OCGA § 33-24-51 (b), which provides for a waiver of county sovereign immunity "for a loss arising out of the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle," up to the limits of insurance coverage purchased by the county or the minimum…”
Fcci Ins. Co.. v. McLendon Enter., Inc., 772 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 10× “Thus, there is express statutory provision for the waiver of sovereign immunity by a local governmental entity to the extent that it purchases liability insurance in an amount in excess of the limits set forth in OCGA § 36-92-2. Gates v. Glass, 291 Ga. 350, 352-353 ( 729 SE2d…”
Gwinnett Cnty. v. Sargent, 738 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 18× “” The County immediately moved to have the jury’s verdict reduced to $100,000 pursuant to OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) (1) (statutory waiver of sovereign immunity).”
Bomia v. Ben Hill Cnty. Sch. Dist., 740 S.E.2d 185 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “See OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) (3), (d) (3). However, the School District’s liability for damages in excess of the amount of immunity waived under OCGA § 36-92-2 applies only to damages which are sustained while such liability insurance is in force and only to the extent of the limits…”
Bd. of Com'rs of Glynn Cnty. v. Johnson, 717 S.E.2d 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “3 OCGA § 36-92-2 sets certain monetary limits for the mandatory waiver of sovereign immunity by local government entities for their operation of a “covered motor vehicle” as that term is defined in OCGA § 36-92-1.”
Mendez v. Moats, 852 S.E.2d 816 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 4× “535, 536-537 ( 361 SE2d 146 ) 4 OCGA § 33-24-51 establishes among other things that a county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the state may secure and provide insurance and that the sovereign immunity of such local government entities for a loss arising…”
Scott v. City of Valdosta, 634 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The insurance waiver of OCGA § 33-24-51 is tied to OCGA § 36-92-2, which sets limits for the amount of the insurance coverage and consequent waiver, and notes again that the waiver applies only to losses arising out of the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle.”
City of Atlanta v. Lockett, 717 S.E.2d 529 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 18× “The City appeals, contending that the trial court erroneously denied the motion for summary judgment because the City was entitled to sovereign immunity under OCGA § 36-92-2 (a). Discerning no error, we affirm.”
Smith v. Chatham Cnty., 591 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “11 We note that in 2002 the General Assembly passed an amendment to OCGA § 33-24-51 (b) to provide that counties waive sovereign immunity for the negligent use of a motor vehicle under OCGA § 36-92-2, effective January 1, 2005, and to authorize counties to pay for claims,…”
Williams v. Whitfield Cnty., 656 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “6 And even where a motor vehicle owned or leased by a county is not insured, the 2002 amendment waives sovereign immunity within the limits set forth in OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of the vehicle.”
Georgia Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency v. Godfrey, 699 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “e waived by the purchase of liability insurance in only three situations: (1) as provided in OCGA § 33-24-51 — where the insurance covers “the negligence of any duly authorized officer, agent, servant, attorney, or employee” that causes damages “arising by reason of ownership,…”
Primas v. City of Milledgeville, 769 S.E.2d 326 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 4× “See OCGA § 36-33-1 (a) (“municipal corporation shall not waive its immunity by purchase of liability insurance except as provided in Code Section 33-24-51 or 36-92-2”); OCGA § 33-24-51 (b) (“sovereign immunity of local entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent…”
Hewell v. Walton Cnty., 664 S.E.2d 875 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “In addition, under a 2002 amendment, even where a motor vehicle owned or leased by a county is not insured, sovereign immunity is waived “within the limits set forth in OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of the vehicle.”
Effingham Cnty. v. Rhodes, 705 S.E.2d 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” But, there is no evidence in the record that a county vehicle, motor or otherwise, caused the hole.”
Bd. of Com'rs of Putnam Cnty. v. Barefoot, 721 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “10 OCGA § 33-24-51 (a) (emphasis supplied); see also OCGA § 36-92-2 (providing the monetary limits up to which sovereign immunity is waived “for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle”).”
Weaver v. City of Statesboro, 653 S.E.2d 765 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “4 Chapter 92 of Title 36 (which includes OCGA§ 36-92-2) applies only to “claims [or] causes of actions arising out of events occurring on or after January 1, 2005.”
DeLOACH v. Elliott, 710 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. 2011).
· cites it 2× “That her ability to recover from the City is now foreclosed is due to her own failure to follow the requisite procedural rules and thus does not raise a constitutional issue. Appellant’s final constitutional argument is that OCGA § 36-92-3 *323 violates the right to trial by…”
DeKalb State Court Prob. Dep't v. Currid, 653 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “15 *652 An act of the General Assembly that meets the constitutional criteria for a statutory waiver is OCGA§ 33-24-51, which pertinently provides: “The sovereign immunity of local government entities for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor…”
Ankerich v. Savko, 734 S.E.2d 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “) OCGA § 36-92-2 (b) only grants a waiver of sovereign immunity “for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle .”
Karisha Upshaw v. Columbus Consol. Gov't (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 26× “al justification in intentionally driving into Giles because Vardman admitted that he acted to stop Giles from fleeing; (2) utilizing the wrong legal standard in finding that Chief Boren was not liable for the negligent hiring and retention of Vardman; and (3) finding that…”
Hobbs v. Mace (M.D. Ga. 2022).
· cites it 25× “§ 33-24-51(b), and as revised in 2002, provides for the waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent a local entity purchases liability insurance in an amount exceeding the limits prescribed in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2. Id. at 351, 729 S.E.2d at 363 .”
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of Coll. Park (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 23× “The federal declaratory action was subsequently dismissed without reaching the merits, however, the opinion noted that “[f]inding that a local government and its insurer can contract around the legislative waiver in 5 OCGA § 36-92-2 would have far reaching implications for all…”
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of Coll. Park, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1287 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
· cites it 22× “They base their argument on O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2, which waives the sovereign immunity of a local government for claims arising out of the negligent use of a motor vehicle up to an aggregate amount of $700,000 per occurrence or up to the policy limits of any commercial liability…”
Mcbrayer v. Scarbrough (Ga. 2023).
· cites it 22× “She claimed that the incident arose from the deputies’ negligent use of a motor vehicle, as contemplated by OCGA § 36-92-2, and that the patrol car was a “covered vehicle,” as that phrase is used in [OCGA §§] 33-24-51; 36-92-1; and 36-92-2.”
Adrienne Young v. Steve Johnson (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 12× “This appeal followed. In her sole claim of error, Young argues that the trial court erred by ruling that she had not established a waiver of the City’s sovereign immunity because the City’s immunity is clearly and explicitly waived by OCGA § 36-92-2 (a) (3).”
City of Atlanta v. Angeles Judith Burgos (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “Rather, the City’s brief acknowledges that it has admitted liability: “Appellant does not dispute that it waived ‘sovereign immunity for a loss arising out of claims for the negligent use of a covered motor vehicle’ up to the limits set forth in OCGA § 36-92-2 (a). Appellant’s…”
Jenny Vu v. City of Atlanta (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 6× “00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence ... and $50,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property in any one occurrence,” OCGA § 36- 92-2(a)(3), and then specifies three ways that municipalities may “increase[]” the 2 statutory…”
— 36-92-2(a) — 1 case
Hobbs v. Mace (M.D. Ga. 2022).
“§ 33-24-51(b), and as revised in 2002, provides for the waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent a local entity purchases liability insurance in an amount exceeding the limits prescribed in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2. Id. at 351, 729 S.E.2d at 363 .”
— 36-92-2(a)(3) — 3 cases
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of Coll. Park, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1287 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
“They base their argument on O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2, which waives the sovereign immunity of a local government for claims arising out of the negligent use of a motor vehicle up to an aggregate amount of $700,000 per occurrence or up to the policy limits of any commercial liability…”
— 36-92-2(b) — 2 cases
Hobbs v. Mace (M.D. Ga. 2022).
“§ 33-24-51(b), and as revised in 2002, provides for the waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent a local entity purchases liability insurance in an amount exceeding the limits prescribed in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2. Id. at 351, 729 S.E.2d at 363 .”
— 36-92-2(d) — 2 cases
Hobbs v. Mace (M.D. Ga. 2022).
“§ 33-24-51(b), and as revised in 2002, provides for the waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent a local entity purchases liability insurance in an amount exceeding the limits prescribed in O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2. Id. at 351, 729 S.E.2d at 363 .”
Jenny Vu v. City of Atlanta (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).
“00 because of bodily injury or death of any one person in any one occurrence ... and $50,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property in any one occurrence,” OCGA § 36- 92-2(a)(3), and then specifies three ways that municipalities may “increase[]” the 2 statutory…”
— 36-92-2(d)(3) — 1 case
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of Coll. Park, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1287 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
“They base their argument on O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2, which waives the sovereign immunity of a local government for claims arising out of the negligent use of a motor vehicle up to an aggregate amount of $700,000 per occurrence or up to the policy limits of any commercial liability…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.