{ "id": 11433222, "name": "JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. RODNEY EDWARD JENKINS and ORANGE COUNTY, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Doe v. Jenkins", "decision_date": "2001-06-05", "docket_number": "No. COA00-629", "first_page": "131", "last_page": "135", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "144 N.C. App. 131" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "649 A.2d 530", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 S.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561396 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "40", "parenthetical": "citing Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 276 N.C. 348, 354, 172 S.E.2d 518, 522 (1970)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795937 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492", "parenthetical": "citing Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 276 N.C. 348, 354, 172 S.E.2d 518, 522 (1970)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560927 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566429 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 S.E.2d 508", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793231, 793236, 793046, 793239, 793240 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0647-03", "/nc/341/0647-01", "/nc/341/0647-02", "/nc/341/0647-05", "/nc/341/0647-04" ] }, { "cite": "457 S.E.2d 902", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "913", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11913553 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61-62", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E.2d 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549616 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 S.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Robinson v. Nash County, 43 N.C. App. 33, 35, 257 S.E.2d 679, 680 (1979)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530443, 2532332, 2530396, 2531257, 2532508 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Robinson v. Nash County, 43 N.C. App. 33, 35, 257 S.E.2d 679, 680 (1979)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0621-03", "/nc/334/0621-02", "/nc/334/0621-05", "/nc/334/0621-04", "/nc/334/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493", "parenthetical": "citing Robinson v. Nash County, 43 N.C. App. 33, 35, 257 S.E.2d 679, 680 (1979)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526342 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714", "parenthetical": "citing Robinson v. Nash County, 43 N.C. App. 33, 35, 257 S.E.2d 679, 680 (1979)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 S.E.2d 425", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2488503 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 S.E.2d 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342", "parenthetical": "quoting Collingwood v. G.E. Real Estate Equities, 324 N.C. 63, 376 S.E.2d 425 (1989)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2500046 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63", "parenthetical": "quoting Collingwood v. G.E. Real Estate Equities, 324 N.C. 63, 376 S.E.2d 425 (1989)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "885" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. App. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11079655 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/138/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11435587 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0507-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 601, "char_count": 11019, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.857016526814821e-07, "percentile": 0.8998874065630853 }, "sha256": "3ec0cbe0894a8cc3d0cd4bed0ddb306cfcd09080b4b00bf372f96331c4d9eca5", "simhash": "1:c23c1b6284fa1ac4", "word_count": 1738 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:44.896074+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BIGGS and JOHN concur." ], "parties": [ "JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. RODNEY EDWARD JENKINS and ORANGE COUNTY, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nPlaintiff brought this action seeking damages for physical and emotional injuries sustained after she was brutally attacked and raped in a restroom at the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina on 14 September 1998. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant Rodney Jenkins followed her into a women\u2019s restroom at the courthouse, locked the door from the inside and, armed with a small knife, repeatedly raped, stabbed, and beat her. Plaintiff alleged claims against Jenkins for assault and battery and false imprisonment; as to defendant Orange County (\u201cdefendant County\u201d), plaintiff alleged a breach of duty to use reasonable care to protect lawful visitors against the reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties while on the courthouse premises. The complaint also alleged defendant County had waived its governmental immunity through the purchase of liability insurance. Due to the nature of the case, and with defendant County\u2019s consent, plaintiff was permitted to proceed through the use of a pseudonym. Defendant County filed an answer in which it denied negligence and asserted, as an affirmative defense, governmental immunity \u201c[t]o the extent that Orange County has not waived its sovereign immunity through the purchase of liability insurance.\u201d\nDefendant County moved for judgment on the pleadings, based upon the public duty doctrine, and for summary judgment, based on the defense of governmental immunity. The motion for summary judgment was supported by the affidavit from the County\u2019s Director of Purchasing and Central Services, attached to which was a copy of the liability insurance coverage contract issued to defendant County by the North Carolina Counties Liability and Property Insurance Pool, which was in effect on the date of the occurrence. The policy contained the following exclusion:\nE. Exclusions Applicable to General Liability\nThis coverage does not apply to any of the following:\n15. Errors and Omissions\nto any liability for any actual or alleged error, misstatement, or misleading statement, act, or omission, or neglect or breach of duty by the Participant, or by any other person for whose acts the Participant is legally responsible arising out of the discharge of duties as a political subdivision or a duly elected or appointed member or official thereof.\nIn response, plaintiff submitted, inter alia, affidavits from two experts in insurance-related issues in which the affiants stated their opinions that the exclusion was inapplicable to plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nThe trial court granted defendant County\u2019s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity and dismissed plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendant County. The trial court certified its order as a final judgment pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b). Plaintiff appeals.\nPlaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting defendant County\u2019s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment. She argues that the basis of her claim against defendant County is premises liability, rather than the public duty of providing police protection, so that judgment on the pleadings based upon application of the public duty doctrine was error. In addition, she contends defendant County\u2019s purchase of liability insurance coverage waived the County\u2019s sovereign immunity, so that summary judgment on the basis of immunity was also error.\nWith respect to plaintiff\u2019s first argument, this Court has recently addressed the issue of the applicability of the public duty doctrine to a county\u2019s duty to provide security at premises which it owns and maintains. In Wood v. Guilford County, 143 N.C. App. 507, 546 S.E.2d 641 (2001) we held that because the defendant county was not acting in its law enforcement capacity in providing security at the county courthouse, but rather was acting as the owner and operator of the premises, the county could not invoke the public duty doctrine as a defense against charges that it failed to protect the plaintiff from an attempted sexual assault at the courthouse. Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings in the instant case, based on the defense of the public duty doctrine, was error. Id.\nWith respect, however, to plaintiff\u2019s argument that defendant County has waived its sovereign immunity, we conclude the plain language of the insurance policy excludes coverage for the negligent acts alleged by plaintiff so that defendant County\u2019s purchase of insurance did not operate to waive its sovereign immunity for the claim asserted by plaintiff. We must, therefore, affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment based on sovereign immunity.\nThis case involves no novel principles of law; it is determined by application of well-established rules of law in North Carolina. Summary judgment is appropriate where \u201cthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Meares v. Jernigan, 138 N.C. App. 318, 320, 530 S.E.2d 883, 885 (2000); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1999). The moving party has the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and can meet the burden by proving that the opposing party \u201c \u2018cannot surmount an affirmative defense which would bar the claim.\u2019 \u201d Roumillat v. Simplistic Enterprises, Inc., 331 N.C. 57, 63, 414 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1992) (quoting Collingwood v. G.E. Real Estate Equities, 324 N.C. 63, 376 S.E.2d 425 (1989)).\nSovereign immunity bars claims brought against the state or its counties, \u201cwhere the entity sued is being sued for the performance of a governmental, rather than a proprietary, function.\u201d Messick v. Catawba County, 110 N.C. App. 707, 714, 431 S.E.2d 489, 493, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993) (citing Robinson v. Nash County, 43 N.C. App. 33, 35, 257 S.E.2d 679, 680 (1979)). A county may, however, waive such immunity through the purchase of liability insurance. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 153A-435 (\u201cPurchase of insurance pursuant to this subsection waives the county\u2019s governmental immunity, to the extent of insurance coverage, for any act or omission occurring in the exercise of a governmental function\u201d). But \u201c[i]mmu-nity is waived only to the extent that the [county] is indemnified by the insurance contract for the acts alleged.\u201d Davis v. Messer, 119 N.C. App. 44, 61-62, 457 S.E.2d 902, 913, disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 647, 462 S.E.2d 508 (1995) (citation omitted). Defendant County acknowledges its purchase of liability insurance in this case, but contends it does not provide coverage for the claim asserted by plaintiff due to the exclusion contained in the coverages contract.\n\u201cCounties, like cities, exist solely as political subdivisions of the State and are creatures of statute.\u201d Davidson County v. City of High Point, 321 N.C. 252, 257, 362 S.E.2d 553, 557 (1987). The obligation of a county in this State to provide and maintain courthouses for the conducting of judicial proceedings is a duty imposed by statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-302. Our Supreme Court has determined that \u201cactivities held to be governmental functions . . . are those historically performed by the government, and which are not ordinarily engaged in by private corporations.\u201d Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc., 287 N.C. 14, 23, 213 S.E.2d 297, 303 (1975) (citation omitted). Thus, the operation of the Orange County Courthouse must be viewed as a governmental function of defendant County acting in its role as a political subdivision. Accordingly, sovereign immunity would apply to bar plaintiff\u2019s claim in the absence of a waiver by defendant.\nIf an insurance policy is not ambiguous, \u201cthen the court must enforce the policy as written and may not remake the policy under the guise of interpreting an ambiguous provision.\u201d Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mabe, 342 N.C. 482, 492, 467 S.E.2d 34, 40 (1996) (citing Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 276 N.C. 348, 354, 172 S.E.2d 518, 522 (1970)). The language of the exclusion in the present case unambiguously limits the coverage provided by the coverages contract. Relevant to plaintiffs complaint, the exclusion states explicitly that \u201ccoverage does not apply to . . . any liability for ... neglect or breach of duty... arising out of the discharge of duties as a political subdivision . . . .\u201d Plaintiff contends the heading \u201cErrors and Omissions\u201d has a technical meaning connoting a specific type of coverage which does not apply to exclude coverage in the instant case. Although our courts have not addressed this precise issue, other courts have stated that \u201c[a]n insured is not entitled to read only the heading and ignore the operative language of the provision itself.\u201d Town of Wallingford v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 649 A.2d 530, 533 (fn. 4) (Conn. 1994) (citation omitted). In this case the language of the applicable provision of the coverage contract relied upon by defendant County excludes coverage for the conduct of which plaintiff complains and we are bound to read, and give effect to, each word in the insurance policy. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 276 N.C. 348, 172 S.E.2d 518 (1970). Accordingly, because the insurance policy does not indemnify defendant against the negligent acts alleged in plaintiffs complaint, defendant has not waived its sovereign immunity and the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment on the pleadings is reversed.\nSummary judgment is affirmed.\nJudges BIGGS and JOHN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., by Tracy K. Lischer and, F. Edward Kirby, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Robert H. Sasser, III, and Mark A. Davis, for defendant-appellee Orange County." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. RODNEY EDWARD JENKINS and ORANGE COUNTY, Defendants\nNo. COA00-629\n(Filed 5 June 2001)\n1. Cities and Towns\u2014 public duty doctrine \u2014 courthouse security\nThe trial court erred by granting defendant-county\u2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the public duty doctrine in an action arising from an assault in a courthouse restroom. The county was not acting in its law enforcement capacity in providing security at the county courthouse.\n2. Immunity\u2014 governmental \u2014 insurance exclusion\nThe trial court correctly granted summary judgment for defendant-county in an action arising from an assault in a courthouse restroom because the plain language of the county\u2019s insurance policy excluded coverage for the negligent acts alleged by plaintiff where it stated that \u201ccoverage does not apply to . . . any liability for... neglect or breach of duty... arising out of the discharge of duties as a political subdivision.\u201d\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 15 March 2000 by Judge Steve A. Balog in Orange County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 March 2001.\nPulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., by Tracy K. Lischer and, F. Edward Kirby, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Robert H. Sasser, III, and Mark A. Davis, for defendant-appellee Orange County." }, "file_name": "0131-01", "first_page_order": 159, "last_page_order": 163 }