Evans v. Housing Auth. of City of Raleigh
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Edmunds
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from order denying motion to dismiss; remanded for clarification of findings and conclusions regarding sovereign immunity and insurance waiver
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Supreme Court of North Carolina remanded the trial court's order denying the Housing Authority's motion to dismiss, requiring the lower court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law to clarify whether its ruling was based on the Housing Authority's liability insurance waiver of sovereign immunity.
Excerpt
1. Immunity — governmental — public housing authority — governmental function A public housing authority created and operated pursuant to N.C.G.S. Ch. 157, like other municipal corporations, is entitled to immunity in tort and contract for acts undertaken by its agents and employees in the exercise of its governmental functions, but not for any proprietary functions it may undertake. 2. Immunity — governmental — public housing authority A public housing authority performs a governmental function in providing housing for low and moderate income families and is entitled to rely on the doctrine of governmental immunity.Page 51 3. Immunity — governmental — public housing authority — waiver — purchase of liability insurance A Chapter 157 housing authority has statutory authority to accept liability for its governmental functions by the purchase of insurance, and thus, can waive its sovereign immunity. 4. Immunity — governmental — public housing authority — remand of order denying motion to dismiss The trial court's order denying defendant public housing authority's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims arising from the use of lead paint on grounds of sovereign or governmental immunity is remanded, because: (1) the order did not contain findings of fact or conclusions of law; and (2) our Supreme Court is unable to discern whether the ruling below was premised upon defendant's insurance coverage.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Whether a unilateral amendment made pursuant to a change-of-terms provision violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and renders a contract illusory.
Whether the Industrial Commission's calculation of the plaintiff's average weekly wages pursuant to N.C.G.S. 97-2(5) and its determination concerning whether that calculation produces results that are fair and just to both parties involve an issue of law or an issue of fact.
Whether State employees are entitled to sovereign immunity against claims of negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death brought against them in their individual capacities, and whether complaint stated cause of action.
Whether an individual may bring a claim under the North Carolina Constitution for a school board's deliberate indifference to continual student harassment.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.