§661-11 Tort claims against State where
covered by insurance. (a) This section applies to an action where:
(1) The State is a party defendant;
(2) The subject matter of the claim is covered by a
primary insurance policy entered into by the State or any of its agencies; and
(3) Chapter 662 does not apply.
No defense of sovereign immunity shall be raised in
an action under this section. However, the State's liability under this
section shall not exceed the amount of, and shall be defrayed exclusively by,
the primary insurance policy.
(b) An action under this section shall not be
subject to sections 661-1 to 661-10. [L 1955, c 253, §1; RL 1955, §245-11; HRS
§661-11; am L 1972, c 164, §1(i); am L 1988, c 266, §2; am L 2016, c 55, §45]
Cross References
State risk management and insurance administration, see
chapter 41D.
Case Notes
State, University of Hawaii, and Research Corporation of the
UH waived immunity under Eleventh Amendment and consented to suit in federal
court. 512 F. Supp. 889 (1981).
The applicability of this section was immaterial to the case
where, whether or not the State's sovereign immunity was waived pursuant to
this section with respect to plaintiff's claim against the State for vicarious
liability, where the Hawaii employer-union health benefits trust fund trustees'
choice of a two-tiered rate structure was not an abuse of discretion, the
trustees did not breach a fiduciary duty, and thus, the State could not be
vicariously liable therefor. 115 H. 126, 165 P.3d 1027 (2007).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1973–2007 · leading case:
Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007).
Awakuni v. Awana, 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 32× “Whether Plaintiffs' Claims Against the State Are Barred by Sovereign Immunity Plaintiffs next aver that the circuit court erred in awarding summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the basis of the State's sovereign immunity because the State expressly waived its immunity…”
In Re Holoholo, 512 F. Supp. 889 (D. Haw. 1981).
· cites it 8× “§§ 661-11 and/or 662-2 and 662-3. 3. The Regents of the University of California have not expressly consented by statute to suit in federal court.”
Towse v. State, 647 P.2d 696 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 2× “We note at the outset, that the State of Hawaii has been named a party to this action under HRS § 661-11 (1976), dealing with tort claims against the State where covered by insurance.”
Oakley v. State, 505 P.2d 1182 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 4× “Act 253, SLH 1955; HRS § 661-11. Finally, in 1957 the territorial legislature enacted what is now the State Tort Liability Act, HRS Ch.”
Mukaida v. Hawaii, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (D. Haw. 2001).
“However, the university shall be subject to suit only in the manner provided for suits against the State, including section 661-11, and any liability incurred by the university in such a *1221 suit shall be solely the liability of the university, shall be payable solely from the…”
Yorita v. Okumoto, 643 P.2d 820 (Haw. App. 1982).
“On August 28, 1978, the day jury selection began, Hilo Hospital moved for a jury trial of its portion of the case and cited Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 661-11 (1976). Plaintiffs objected and cited HRS § 662-5 (1976).”
Trens v. Univ. of Hawaii, 512 F. Supp. 889 (D. Haw. 1981).
· cites it 8× “§§ 661-11 and/or 662-2 and 662-3. 3. The Regents of the University of California have not expressly consented by statute to suit in federal court.”
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.