Blair v. Anderson
1974 Del. LEXIS 304, 325 A.2d 94 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state legislature authorizes a state agency to enter into a contract, the state implicitly waives its sovereign immunity from suits for breach of that contract. A person for whose benefit a government contract is made, and for whom the promisee owes a pre-existing legal duty that the contract's performance will satisfy, is a creditor beneficiary with standing to sue the promisor for breach.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was a federal prisoner.
- The United States Department of Justice entered into a contract with the State of Delaware's Department of Correction to house federal prisoners.
- Under the contract, Delaware agreed to provide for the 'safekeeping, care and subsistence' of these prisoners.
- The contract explicitly stated it was the state's responsibility 'to keep the prisoners in safe custody'.
- While incarcerated in the New Castle County Correctional Institution, the plaintiff was attacked and injured by a fellow prisoner.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the State of Delaware in the Superior Court (a trial court), asserting claims in both tort and contract.
- The State of Delaware filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the suit was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
- The Superior Court granted the State's motion, dismissing both the tort and contract claims.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State of Delaware waive its sovereign immunity and consent to be sued for breach of contract by a federal prisoner who is injured in a state facility, when the state has a contract with the United States to provide for the 'safekeeping, care and subsistence' of that prisoner?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffy, Justice
Yes. The State of Delaware waived its sovereign immunity for a breach of contract claim by entering into the agreement, and the plaintiff has standing to sue as a creditor beneficiary. While the Delaware Constitution requires a legislative act to waive sovereign immunity, such a waiver does not need to be express. When the General Assembly grants a state agency the authority to enter into a contract, it implicitly and necessarily waives immunity to suits for breach of that contract. The United States government owes a statutory duty of 'safekeeping' and 'protection' to its prisoners. By contracting with the U.S. to perform this duty, Delaware made the prisoner a creditor beneficiary of that agreement, not merely an incidental one. As a creditor beneficiary, the plaintiff has a direct interest in the contract and a right to enforce its terms against the State.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of sovereign immunity in the context of government contracts. It establishes that a legislative authorization to contract is sufficient to constitute an implicit waiver of immunity for breach, preventing the state from using its sovereign status as a shield against its contractual obligations. Furthermore, the case extends contract enforcement rights to third-party beneficiaries of intergovernmental agreements, specifically classifying a prisoner as a creditor beneficiary with standing to sue. This provides a crucial avenue for relief for individuals who are the direct subjects of such agreements but are not formal parties to them, reflecting a judicial trend toward narrowing the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
