{
  "id": 8210863,
  "name": "NORTH CAROLINA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Board of Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College",
  "decision_date": "2007-08-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA06-401",
  "first_page": "518",
  "last_page": "524",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. App. 518"
    }
  ],
  "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": "618 S.E.2d 201",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633816
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "203"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/618/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "622 S.E.2d 691",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634559
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "695",
          "parenthetical": "citing Battle Ridge Cos. v. N.C. DOT, 161 N.C. App. 156, 157, 587 S.E.2d 426, 427 (2003)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/622/0691-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "625 S.E.2d 877",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635092
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "880"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/625/0877-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "630 S.E.2d 197",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635848
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "199",
          "parenthetical": "Appeals raising issues of sovereign immunity affect a substantial right and are immediately appealable."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/630/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1998 US. Dist. LEXIS 15153",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_lexis",
      "reporter": "U.S. Dist. LEXIS",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "*6",
          "parenthetical": "concluding \"GTCC is an alter ego of the [S]tate\" of North Carolina"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 782",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3795500
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "784"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0782-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "561 S.E.2d 336",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339",
          "parenthetical": "holding in order to state a cognizable claim against a government entity plaintiff ''must allege and prove\" waiver of sovereign immunity"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N.C. App. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9130742
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "623",
          "parenthetical": "holding in order to state a cognizable claim against a government entity plaintiff ''must allege and prove\" waiver of sovereign immunity"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/149/0619-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "716 A.2d 730",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        11704003
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "735",
          "parenthetical": "upholding as constitutional Rhode Island's net worth provision allowing for reimbursement"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/a2d/716/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "697 N.W.2d 223",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8955336
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "231",
          "parenthetical": "permitting the guaranty association to recover from an insured with a net worth over $25 million"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/697/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "925 F.2d 160",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1789398
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "upholding as constitutional Michigan's net worth provision"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/925/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "587 S.E.2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "427"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8956001
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "157"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/161/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N.C. App. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8349876
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "51",
          "parenthetical": "citing Battle Ridge Cos. v. N.C. DOT, 161 N.C. App. 156, 157, 587 S.E.2d 426, 427 (2003)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/175/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "543 S.E.2d 480",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135902
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "534 S.E.2d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N.C. App. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9497170
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "528",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/139/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 S.E.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2566429
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "286",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169585
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "37",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0026-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E.2d 308",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "310-11",
          "parenthetical": "\"the Courts will never say that [sovereign immunity] has been abrogated, abridged, or surrendered, except in deference to plain, positive legislative declarations to that effect\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564392
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "296",
          "parenthetical": "\"the Courts will never say that [sovereign immunity] has been abrogated, abridged, or surrendered, except in deference to plain, positive legislative declarations to that effect\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S.E.2d 792",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "795"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624863
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "172-73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "410 S.E.2d 513",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "514"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.C. App. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523272
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "615-16"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/104/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "556 S.E.2d 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "40"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "40",
          "parenthetical": "quotation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.C. App. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9379559
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "338"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/147/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-20",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N.C. App. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8300871
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "144"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/176/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "545 S.E.2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "245-46"
        },
        {
          "page": "246"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11433311
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "100"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N.C. App. 806",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8302972
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "808",
          "parenthetical": "Appeals raising issues of sovereign immunity affect a substantial right and are immediately appealable."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/177/0806-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "565 S.E.2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511222
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "13"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "576 S.E.2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "319",
          "parenthetical": "citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511442
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "647",
          "parenthetical": "citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "610 S.E.2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "212"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N.C. App. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468804
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "155"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/169/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-50",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(al)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(al)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "al"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 723,
    "char_count": 13878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5761228785629862e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6795598893989573
    },
    "sha256": "8b7d0771f7ec228ce44357e07b67563beff58364689c4de210a2c62c187d0a26",
    "simhash": "1:2a2916fb51ab8e18",
    "word_count": 2167
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:26.584781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and HUNTER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NORTH CAROLINA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nThe Board of Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College (defendant-GTCC) appeals from an order entered 26 January 2006 denying its motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action filed by North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association (plaintiff-NCIGA). Because we hold NCIGA\u2019s claim for reimbursement for payments made on behalf of GTCC is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.\nThis case arises from claims for workers\u2019 compensation benefits made against GTCC by its employees that were paid by NCIGA as \u201ccovered claims\u201d within NCIGA\u2019s obligations under the North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association Act (Guaranty Act). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-1, et seq. GTCC is a two-year accredited community college operating under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115D-1, et seq. NCIGA is a non-profit, unincorporated, statutory association arising and existing pursuant to the Guaranty Act. GTCC purchased workers\u2019 compensation liability insurance from Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance). Reliance was declared insolvent and placed into liquidation in Pennsylvania on 3 October 2001.\nFollowing Reliance\u2019s insolvency, NCIGA fulfilled its statutory obligations under the Guaranty Act, and began making indemnity and defense payments in connection with GTCC workers\u2019 compensation claims which were \u201ccovered claims\u201d under the Guaranty Act. NCIGA thereafter demanded that GTCC reimburse $324,013 paid by NCIGA through 19 August 2005 \u00f3n GTCC workers\u2019 compensation claims. NCIGA\u2019s demand for reimbursement was made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-50(al), a provision of the Guaranty Act which grants NCIGA the right to recover all sums paid for \u201ccovered claims\u201d on behalf of an insured if the insured\u2019s net worth as of December 31 of the year preceding the insolvency of the insured\u2019s carrier exceeds $50 million. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-50(al) (2005). GTCC does not dispute that it had a net worth in excess of $50 million as of 31 December 2000.\nNCIGA commenced a declaratory judgment action on 20 September 2005 against GTCC. NCIGA\u2019s complaint seeks reimbursement from GTCC pursuant to the net worth provisions of the Guaranty Act. In response to NCIGA\u2019s complaint, GTCC moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12 (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, all on the grounds NCIGA\u2019s claims against GTCC were barred by sovereign immunity. The trial court denied GTCC\u2019s motion to dismiss. Defendant-GTCC appeals.\nDefendant argues that based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity the trial court erred by denying GTCC\u2019s motion to dismiss because: (I) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (II) the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and (III) plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.\nThe standard of review on appeal from a motion to dismiss is de novo. Hatcher v. Harrah\u2019s N.C. Casino Co., LLC, 169 N.C. App. 151, 155, 610 S.E.2d 210, 212 (2005). \u201cUnder a de novo review, the [C]ourt considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the [trial court].\u201d In re Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P\u2019ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) (citing Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002)).\nDefendant argues the trial court erred by denying their motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity because the trial court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Initially, we note the immediate appeal, although interlocutory, is appropriate because the trial court\u2019s denial of a motion to dismiss based on GTCC\u2019s sovereign immunity defense affects a substantial right. McClennahan v. N.C. Sch. of the Arts, 177 N.C. App. 806, 808, 630 S.E.2d 197, 199 (2006) (Appeals raising issues of sovereign immunity affect a substantial right and are immediately appealable.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However,\n\u201can appeal of a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity presents a question of personal jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction!)]\u201d [Data Gen. Corp. v. County of Durham, 143 N.C. App. 97, 100, 545 S.E.2d 243, 245-46 (2001).] Therefore, our Court held that the denial of a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable, even where the defense of sovereign immunity is raised. Id. at 100, 545 S.E.2d at 246.\nDavis v. Dibartolo, 176 N.C. App. 142, 144, 625 S.E.2d 877, 880 (2006). Therefore, we review defendant\u2019s appeal from their motion to dismiss on the basis of defendant\u2019s claim that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to determine whether the General Assembly has waived GTCC\u2019s sovereign immunity for claims by NCIGA under the reimbursement provision of the Guaranty Act.\nThe reimbursement provision of the Guaranty Act states in pertinent part:\nThe [NCIGA] shall have the right to recover from the following persons the amount of any \u201ccovered claim\u201d paid on behalf of such person pursuant to this Article: (1) Any insured whose net worth on December 31 of the year next preceding the date the insurer becomes insolvent exceeds fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) and whose liability obligations to other persons are satisfied in whole or in part by payments under this Article. . . .\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-50 (al) (2002) (emphasis added). While the General Assembly did not define the term \u201cinsured\u201d in the Guaranty Act, a \u201cperson\u201d is defined as \u201cany individual, corporation, partnership, association or voluntary organization.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-48-20 (8) (2002). NCIGA argues that the broad language of \u201cany insured\u201d in the reimbursement provision waives GTCC\u2019s sovereign immunity.\nHowever, a waiver of sovereign immunity can be made only by the General Assembly. Wood v. N.C. State Univ., 147 N.C. App. 336, 338, 556 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2001). North Carolina courts have applied a rule of strict construction to statutes authorizing waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. (citation omitted); Jones v. Pitt Co. Mem. Hosp., 104 N.C. App. 613, 615-16, 410 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1991). Our Supreme Court has stated \u201c[i]t is for the General Assembly to determine when and under what circumstances the State may be sued.\u201d Jones at 615-16, 410 S.E.2d at 514 (citing Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gold, Comm\u2019r of Ins., 254 N.C. 168, 172-73, 118 S.E.2d 792, 795 (1961)). Further,\n[t]he State and its governmental units cannot be deprived of the sovereign attributes of immunity except by a clear waiver by the lawmaking body. The concept of sovereign immunity is so firmly established that it should not and cannot be waived by indirection or by procedural rule. Any such change should be by plain, unmistakable mandate of the lawmaking body.\nWood at 338, 556 S.E.2d at 40 (quotation omitted); See Orange County v. Heath, 282 N.C. 292, 296, 192 S.E.2d 308, 310-11 (1972) (\u201cthe Courts will never say that [sovereign immunity] has been abrogated, abridged, or surrendered, except in deference to plain, positive legislative declarations to that effect\u201d) (emphasis added); Davidson County v. High Point, 85 N.C. App. 26, 37, 354 S.E.2d 280, 286, aff'd as modified, 321 N.C. 252, 362 S.E.2d 553 (1987) (citation omitted) (\u201cgeneral statutes do not apply to the State unless the State is specifically mentioned therein\u201d).\nThe absolute and unqualified protection of sovereign immunity extends to suits against State \u201cdepartments, institutions and agencies.\u201d RPR & Assocs. v. State, 139 N.C. App. 525, 528, 534 S.E.2d 247, 250 (2000) (emphasis added), aff'd, 353 N.C. 362, 543 S.E.2d 480 (2001) (citation omitted). As a sovereign, the State of North Carolina is immune from suit absent its consent to be sued or waiver of immunity. Welch Contr., Inc. v. N.C. DOT, 175 N.C. App. 45, 51, 622 S.E.2d 691, 695 (2005) (citing Battle Ridge Cos. v. N.C. DOT, 161 N.C. App. 156, 157, 587 S.E.2d 426, 427 (2003)). GTCC, as a community college and an institution of the State, is authorized to waive its governmental immunity from liability through the purchase of liability insurance for negligent or tortious conduct that results in bodily injury or property damage. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115D-24 (2005). GTCC is also authorized to waive its immunity by purchasing insurance to cover liability for workers\u2019 compensation claims.\nNCIGA argues the net worth provision compels its right to reimbursement from GTCC and that GTCC has waived its sovereign immunity by purchasing workers\u2019 compensation liability insurance from Reliance. We are ultimately unpersuaded by these arguments. First, the cases cited by NCIGA from other jurisdictions are not instructive where they fail to analyze whether the sovereign immunity defense is a bar to a guaranty association\u2019s right to reimbursement from a State agency. See, e.g., Borman\u2019s, Inc. v. Mich. Prop. & Cas. Guar. Assoc., 925 F.2d 160 (6th Cir. 1991) (upholding as constitutional Michigan\u2019s net worth provision); Minn. Ins. Guar. Ass\u2019n v. Integra Telecom, Inc., 697 N.W.2d 223, 231 (Minn. 2005) (permitting the guaranty association to recover from an insured with a net worth over $25 million); Rhode Island Insurer\u2019s Insolvency Fund v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 716 A.2d 730, 735 (R.I. 1998) (upholding as constitutional Rhode Island\u2019s net worth provision allowing for reimbursement). In fact, no legal authority exists to support a guaranty association\u2019s right to seek reimbursement from a State agency which has asserted sovereign immunity.\nNCIGA\u2019s second argument, that GTCC has waived sovereign immunity, also fails. With respect to workers\u2019 compensation claims against GTCC, the Community Colleges Act provides that \u201call institutional employees\u201d are protected under Chapter 97 of the General Statutes of North Carolina (Workers\u2019 Compensation Act). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115D-23 (2005). Further, community colleges are authorized to \u201cpurchase insurance to cover workers\u2019 compensation liability.\u201d Id. Accordingly, our General Assembly has explicitly waived GTCC\u2019s sovereign immunity only as to its institutional employees raising valid workers\u2019 compensation claims. However, and most notably, the General Assembly is silent as to any claims for reimbursement NCIGA has against the State.\nAccordingly, we have found no provision in the North Carolina General Statutes that presents a \u201cclear waiver\u201d of GTCC\u2019s sovereign immunity or a \u201cplain, unmistakable mandate\u201d for waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent clear proof that the State has waived sovereign immunity pursuant to the reimbursement provision of the Guaranty Act, we are compelled to reverse the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. See Sellers v. Rodriguez, 149 N.C. App. 619, 623, 561 S.E.2d 336, 339 (2002) (holding in order to state a cognizable claim against a government entity plaintiff '\u2018must allege and prove\u201d waiver of sovereign immunity).\nMoreover, dismissal is appropriate \u201cwhere the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.\u201d Newberne v. Dep\u2019t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 359 N.C. 782, 784, 618 S.E.2d 201, 203 (2005). As discussed above, accepting the factual allegations in NCIGA\u2019s complaint as true, dismissal is proper because NCIGA cannot defeat GTCC\u2019s sovereign immunity defense. NCIGA\u2019s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We therefore reverse the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nReversed.\nJudges WYNN and HUNTER concur.\n. This provision was amended in 2003. However, the 2002 version of the statute remains applicable to insurer insolvencies, such as Reliance, which occurred prior to the effective date of the 2003' amendments.\n. See Miller v. Guilford Tech. Comm. College, 1998 US. Dist. LEXIS 15153, *6 (M.D.N.C. June 15, 1998) (concluding \u201cGTCC is an alter ego of the [S]tate\u201d of North Carolina).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP, by Christopher J. Blake, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Smith Moore, LLP, by Sidney S. Eagles, Jr. and James R. Holland, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORTH CAROLINA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant\nNo. COA06-401\n(Filed 21 August 2007)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 sovereign immunity\u2014 substantial right\nAlthough defendant community college\u2019s appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss is an appeal from an interlocutory order, it is immediately appealable because the defense of sovereign immunity affects a substantial right.\n2. Immunity\u2014 sovereign \u2014 community college \u2014 reimbursement of payments for workers\u2019 compensation benefits\nThe trial court erred by denying defendant community college\u2019s motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action by the Insurance Guaranty Association for reimbursement of payments for workers\u2019 compensation benefits under the net worth provisions of the Guaranty Act in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-48-50(al), because: (1) the cases cited by plaintiff from other jurisdictions are not instructive when they fail to analyze whether the sovereign immunity defense is a bar to a guaranty association\u2019s right to reimbursement from a State agency, and no legal authority exists to support a guaranty association\u2019s right to seek reimbursement from a State agency which has asserted sovereign immunity; (2) our General Assembly has explicitly waived defendant\u2019s sovereign immunity only as to its institutional employees raising valid workers\u2019 compensation claims; (3) the General Assembly is silent as to any claims for reimbursement plaintiff has against the State; and (4) there are no provisions in the North Carolina General Statutes that present a clear waiver of defendant\u2019s sovereign immunity or a plain unmistakable mandate for waiver of sovereign immunity.\nDefendant appeals from an order entered 26 January 2006 by Judge A. Leon Stanback, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 June 2007.\nNelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP, by Christopher J. Blake, for plaintiff-appellee.\nSmith Moore, LLP, by Sidney S. Eagles, Jr. and James R. Holland, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0518-01",
  "first_page_order": 550,
  "last_page_order": 556
}