Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 12 Chapter 189
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602 (2026)

Exclusive right of action

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 5602)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 4× “She concedes that the individually named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times, but argues that their alleged wrongful actions were grossly negligent and may have been malicious and willful.”
Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, 955 A.2d 1082. · cites it 2× “12 V.S.A. § 5602(a); Amy's Enters. v. Sorrell, 174 Vt.”
Kennery v. State of Vermont, Valcourt, LaBombard & Other Members of the Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2011 VT 121, 38 A.3d 35. · cites it 4× “12 V.S.A. § 5602(a)-(b). Thus, plaintiff’s negligence claim based on the troopers’ acts must lie in a claim against the State.”
Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint after the trial court granted Pallas’s motion for judgment on the pleadings due to the immunity from suit 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a) 5 provides when state employees act within the scope of their employment.”
Huminski v. Lavoie, 787 A.2d 489 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, although defendants had never presented immunity defenses on behalf of the individual defendants, the court dismissed the claims against defendants Wright and Lavoie because: (1) under 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a), claims based on an act or omission of a state employee…”
Rochon v. State, 2004 VT 77, 862 A.2d 801. · cites it 4× “See 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a)-(b) (exclusive right of action based on conduct of state employees acting within scope of employment is against State, unless claim is that employees acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct).”
Lomberg v. Crowley, 415 A.2d 1324 (Vt. 1980). · cites it 3× “12 V.S.A. § 5602 reserves to the state and its employees a sphere of sovereign immunity which may not be waived by the acquisition of insurance by the state.”
Morway v. Trombly, 789 A.2d 965 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2× “12 V.S.A. § 5602 (when state employee causes damage or injury while acting within scope of employment, exclusive right of action lies against state), or required municipalities to defend or indemnify municipal employees to the extent required of the state.”
Levinsky v. Diamond, 559 A.2d 1073 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 2× “2d 1324, 1326-27 (1980), defendants, as state employees, were also protected by the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 5602 governing sovereign immunity.”
Cronin v. State, 531 A.2d 929 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 3× “3 Lomberg held that the areas of sovereign immunity preserved by 12 V.S.A. § 5602 were not destroyed by the general waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance contained in 29 V.”
Libercent v. Aldrich, 539 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 2× “Chapter 9, is barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 5602(7). We answer the first of these questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative.”
Curran v. Marcille, 565 A.2d 1362 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 3× “§ 5602, including § 5602(1), which states: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be…”
Show all 54 citing cases →
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(1): 4 cases
Lomberg v. Crowley, 415 A.2d 1324 (Vt. 1980). “12 V.S.A. § 5602 reserves to the state and its employees a sphere of sovereign immunity which may not be waived by the acquisition of insurance by the state.”
Curran v. Marcille, 565 A.2d 1362 (Vt. 1989). “§ 5602, including § 5602(1), which states: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the state exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be…”
Shields v. Gerhart, 582 A.2d 153 (Vt. 1990).
Agency of Env't Conservation v. Casella, 457 A.2d 633 (Vt. 1983).
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(6): 1 case
Cronin v. State, 531 A.2d 929 (Vt. 1987). “3 Lomberg held that the areas of sovereign immunity preserved by 12 V.S.A. § 5602 were not destroyed by the general waiver of sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance contained in 29 V.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(7): 1 case
Libercent v. Aldrich, 539 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1987). “Chapter 9, is barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 5602(7). We answer the first of these questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(a): 25 cases
Colby v. Umbrella, Inc., 2008 VT 20, 955 A.2d 1082. “12 V.S.A. § 5602(a); Amy's Enters. v. Sorrell, 174 Vt.”
Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002). “She concedes that the individually named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times, but argues that their alleged wrongful actions were grossly negligent and may have been malicious and willful.”
Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001). “Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint after the trial court granted Pallas’s motion for judgment on the pleadings due to the immunity from suit 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a) 5 provides when state employees act within the scope of their employment.”
Rochon v. State, 2004 VT 77, 862 A.2d 801. “See 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a)-(b) (exclusive right of action based on conduct of state employees acting within scope of employment is against State, unless claim is that employees acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct).”
Huminski v. Lavoie, 787 A.2d 489 (Vt. 2001). “Nevertheless, although defendants had never presented immunity defenses on behalf of the individual defendants, the court dismissed the claims against defendants Wright and Lavoie because: (1) under 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a), claims based on an act or omission of a state employee…”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(a)(b): 1 case
Ks v. Dcf, No. 23-cv-5354 (Vt. Super. Ct. Sept. 11, 2025).
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(b): 12 cases
Kennery v. State of Vermont, Valcourt, LaBombard & Other Members of the Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2011 VT 121, 38 A.3d 35. “12 V.S.A. § 5602(a)-(b). Thus, plaintiff’s negligence claim based on the troopers’ acts must lie in a claim against the State.”
Powers v. Off. of Child Support, 795 A.2d 1259 (Vt. 2002). “She concedes that the individually named defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at all relevant times, but argues that their alleged wrongful actions were grossly negligent and may have been malicious and willful.”
Kane v. Lamothe, 182 Vt. 241 (2007).
Huminski v. Lavoie, 787 A.2d 489 (Vt. 2001). “Nevertheless, although defendants had never presented immunity defenses on behalf of the individual defendants, the court dismissed the claims against defendants Wright and Lavoie because: (1) under 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a), claims based on an act or omission of a state employee…”
olsen v. frey (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024).
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5602(c): 1 case
Rivard v. State, No. 23-cv-1280 (Vt. Super. Ct. June 26, 2024).
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.