Are Counties Covered by Sovereign Immunity

Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Chatham County

Chatham County in Georgia operates a drawbridge which previously failed and caused damage to a private boat in excess of the amount of $130,000. The County’s insurance provider, Northern Insurance Company, paid the private owner and sued the County in admiralty for the amount, a suit which the County argues is barred by sovereign immunity. While sovereign immunity does not extend to counties per se, but does extend to counties where the counties exercise delegated state powers (Broward County v. Wickman). The Eleventh Circuit found this protection not in the Eleventh Amendment, but in residual common law (a footnote indicates that it is unclear whether the County argues that this expanded protection derives from the constitutional structure or bare common law). Here the Court notes that ‘Eleventh Amendment Immunity’ is a convenient shorthand for the concept of innate sovereign immunity, but is something of a misnomer, as this sovereign immunity is prior to the Eleventh Amendment (it neither derives from, nor is limited by the terms of the Amendment).

The County argues that the Court should therefore be willing to adopt a broader test that that employed under the Eleventh Amendment to determine whether the County (or any other entity) is acting as an arm of the state; the Court declines and limits its ‘arm-of-the-state’ determination to precedent. Alternatively, the County asks the Court to recognizes an extended sovereign immunity for counties and municipalities in admiralty suits because they are carrying out “core state functions with regard to navigable waters.” This the Court declines to do, as immunity in admiralty suits is considered to be merely an extension of simple sovereign immunity. Finally, the Court distinguishes between two cases, one of which addressed the substantive law of admiralty, the other of which addressed the question of a court’s jurisdiction in admiralty cases, and held that only the former is applicable since it addressed the substantive law of admiralty because it found that sovereign immunity does not protect municipalities.