Argonaut Great Central Ins. v. Audrain Cnty. Joint Commc'n, No. 13-3252 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseArgonaut filed suit against ACJC, alleging that ACJC's negligence in monitoring a security alarm panel caused or contributed to damages arising out of the burglary and fire of a grocery store insured by Argonaut. The district court denied summary judgment to ACJC, finding that ACJC had waived its sovereign and statutory immunity by purchasing insurance. ACJC filed an interlocutory appeal. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address the question whether ACJC's purchase of insurance also waived any statutory immunity it might enjoy under Section 190.307 of the Missouri Revised Statutes as a 911 call center where the statute does not extend to ACJC a substantive right to be free from the burdens of litigation. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that ACJC did not prove the existence of a pre-existing agreement between itself and the insurer to include the sovereign immunity endorsement with the original policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's determination that ACJC waived the common law sovereign immunity provided by Section 537.600 of the Missouri Revised Statutes through its purchase of insurance. The court dismissed the remaining portions of the interlocutory appeal based on lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. In suit alleging defendant's negligence in monitoring a private security firm's alarm panels resulting in damages to Argonuat's insured, the court had jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal over the question of whether defendant's purchase of insurance waived the common law sovereign immunity it might otherwise enjoy under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 537.600; the court lacked jurisdiction to address the question whether defendant's purchase of insurance also waived any statutory immunity it might enjoy under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 190.307 as a 911 call center as the statutory section does not extend defendant a substantive right to be free from the burdens of litigation; with respect to the issue of common law sovereign immunity, the district court did not err in finding defendant had not presented sufficient evidence of a pre-existing agreement with its insurer to attach a sovereign immunity endorsement to the policy; as a result, the district court's finding that defendant had waived the immunity provided by the statute through its insurance purchase is affirmed. [ February 10, 2015
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 17, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.