BROADCASTS.com

b'

Indian Tribe\'s Sovereign Immunity Limits Waived by Insurance if Claimant\\n Complies with Waiver Requirements\\n\\nThe Seminole Tribe of Florida ("the Tribe") appealed an order denying \\nits motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The trial court \\nrejected the Tribe\'s contention that Jose Webster did not comply with \\nthe terms of the sovereign immunity waiver contained in the 2010 Gaming \\nCompact (the Compact). The Compact required, among other conditions, \\nthat the Tribe and its insurance carrier have one year to resolve a \\nclaim after a Patron gives notice of the claim, and if the claim is not \\nsettled in that time, the Patron may file suit.\\n\\nIn Seminole Tribe Of Florida, d/b/a Seminole Gaming v. Jose Webster, No.\\n 4D2022-3448, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (September 13, \\n2023) the Tribe asserted in the motion to dismiss that the defendant \\nfailed to comply with the required conditions because he sued the Tribe \\nwithin one year of having given written notice of the underlying claim. \\nThe trial court denied the motion, because the last of three variations \\nof the plaintiff\'s complaint filed would have complied with the Compact.\\n\\nAs a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Seminole Tribe is entitled \\nto sovereign immunity over all claims unless such immunity is abrogated \\nby Congress or waived by the Seminole Tribe. Further, a waiver must be \\nstrictly construed with any ambiguities being resolved against waiver.\\n\\nWebster was a patron at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino \\nHollywood (the "Casino") in September 2019. He claims the Tribe was \\nnegligent in failing to protect him from criminal acts which allegedly \\noccurred at the Casino during his visit.\\n\\nIn January 2020, Webster timely provided written notice of his claim to \\nthe facility. Two months later, Webster sued "Seminole Hard Rock \\nEntertainment, Inc. d/b/a Seminole Hard Rock Casino." The proper \\ndefendant was the "Seminole Tribe of Florida d/b/a Seminole Hard Rock \\nHotel &Casino-Hollywood. The trial court denied the Tribe\'s motion \\nto dismiss without prejudice.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nThe first amended complaint and second amended complaint named the \\nTribe, albeit each stating a different fictitious name. Those complaints\\n alleged the same tort cause of action against the Tribe. Even if the \\nfictitious name may be in error, the fact remains that the real party in\\n interest, and the proper defendant, is the Tribe.\\n\\nThe Tribe contends that Webster failed to comply with the Compact\'s \\nSection VI.D.4. by filing the first amended complaint within the \\none-year pre-suit period set by the Compact, and Webster\'s failure to \\nstrictly follow the Compact\'s procedures bars his claim.\\n\\nThe record does not include proof that the Tribe responded to Webster\'s \\nclaim within thirty days of his written notice. Therefore, although \\nWebster\'s first amended complaint commenced suit against the Tribe \\nwithin one year of his notice of claim his original suit did not.\\n\\nFor the foregoing reasons, the appellate court reversed the order \\ndenying sovereign immunity and remand for further proceedings.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nSovereigns, like the tribe can only be sued if the sovereign entity \\nagrees. The tribe agreed to waive the immunity if certain conditions \\nwere met. Webster failed to meet the requirements of the waiver compact \\nand, as a result, he could not sue as he did. The tribe had insurance \\nand he needed to provide the insurer with the time and opportunity to \\nsettle his claim. By prematurely suing he was unable to take advantage \\nof the waiver.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.