Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Audrain Cnty. Joint Commc'ns., No. 13-3252 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseArgonaut sued Audrain County Joint Communications (ACJC) alleging 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. Public employees at the ACJC call center monitored a private security company's alarm panels. The panels were defective. ACJC argued that it was entitled to sovereign immunity as a Missouri state entity, and to statutory immunity as a 911 call center. The district court denied summary judgment after finding ACJC had waived its sovereign and statutory immunity by purchasing insurance. The Eighth Circuit dismissed part of an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but otherwise affirmed. Missouri Revised Statutes Section 537.600 generally preserves "sovereign or governmental tort immunity as existed at common law" and specifically refers to "the immunity of [a] public entity from liability and suit." Section 190.307, however, does not create a substantive right to be free from the burdens of litigation. There was no clear error in the district court's determination under section 537.600 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.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. 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 have under Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 537.600; the court lacked jurisdiction to address the question of whether defendant's purchase of insurance also waived any statutory immunity it might have under Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 190.307 as a 911 call center, as that statute does not extend to defendant a substantive right to be free from the burdens of litigation; the district court did not err in determining that defendant did not present sufficient evidence that it and its insurer had a pre-existing agreement to attach a sovereign immunity endorsement to the insurance policy and made a mutual mistake when they failed to do so; the district court did not err, therefore in determining defendant waived the common law sovereign immunity provided by Sec. 537.600 through the purchase of insurance.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 11, 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.