Document Type

Article

Publication Date

12-3-2004

Abstract

In the Blackfeet Tribal Court, in a personal injury tort claim by Bear Child (“Plaintiff”) against Siyeh Development inc, the Blackfeet Tribe, First American Insurance Group, and five separate John Does (collectively “Defendants”), the Court denied a motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The claim arose from a fall in one of the Tribe’s Bingo halls/casinos.

Defendants cited Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 532 U.S. 751, stating that “Indian tribes enjoy sovereign immunity from civil suits on contracts whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities... a tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” The Court in that case continues “the Oklahoma Court of Appeals belief that federal law does not mandate such immunity is mistaken, it is a matter of federal law and is not subject to [diminution] by the STATES.” Id.

In the Blackfeet Court, the Court distinguished the Oklahoma holding from the case at hand in that while the Tribe has immunity from the State or outside interference, the Plaintiff in this case is not a state, but rather a Blackfeet Tribal member.
The Court notes that the case at hand is distinguishable from Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, which holds that suits against the tribe are barred by sovereign immunity since nothing in the ICRA purports to subject the tribe to the jurisdiction of federal courts in civil actions for declaratory or injunctive relief. Tribal courts are the appropriate forums to adjudicate disputes and vindicating rights credited by ICRA.

The Court quotes Justice Marshall in Martinez: "the equal protection guarantee of the Indian Civil Rights Act should not be construed in a manner which would require or authorize this court to determine which traditional values will promote cultural survival and should the ref ore be preserved ... such determination should be made by the people of Santa Clara, not only because they can best decide what values are important, but also because they must live with the decision every day ... to abrogate Tribal decisions, particularly in the delicate area of membership, for whatever "good" reason , is to destroy cultural identity under the guise of saving it."

While Martinez concerned a membership dispute from a member of the tribe versus the tribe itself, the case at hand deals with a personal injury suit upon a member of the Blackfeet Tribe (not the tribe itself).
Citing Blackfeet Case Law as precedent, the Court noted that even though an insurer abandoned its clientele without explanation, because the insurance was in effect at the time of the injury, it allowed the case to proceed. Bremner v. Blackfeet Tribe.
Bremner concerned a suit against the Blackfeet Tribe after a injury at the Glen Heavy Runner Swimming Pool, where the plaintiff, a member or descendant of the Blackfeet Tribe, was allowed to sue despite the assertion of sovereign immunity. The Court notes that Bremner explicitly allows for civil suits to overcome sovereign immunity for members and/or descendants, not outside persons or entities.

Court rejected Defendant’s assertion that Siyeh is a department of the Blackfeet Tribe, and thus immune from suit. The Court noted very clear delineations for insurance, liability, and profit split, in the contract between Siyeh and the Blackfeet Tribe. The Court determined that Siyeh is an independent corporation. The contracts the Blackfeet Tribe entered provide that Siyeh will provide insurance to cover property loss and any liability that may occur in the business. Defendant, First Americans Insurance Group received payment and provided coverage. In this case, the Blackfeet Tribe was acting in their corporate capacity and not their governmental capacity by contracting out Bingo/Casino type businesses to be managed by a corporation. By engaging in a contract with the outside corporation, Casino managers' report to a corporate board of directors, not the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council. The Tribe is not acting in a governmental capacity when it does not manage the bingo/casino, but rather a corporate capacity, rebutting the presumption of sovereign immunity. See Wippert v. Blackfeet Tribe, 260 Mont. 93, 859 P.2d 420 (Mont. 1993).

The Court found that the bingo/casino does not stand in the same capacity as the Blackfeet Tribe and is not entitled to derivative immunity which is coextensive to that of the Blackfeet Tribe.

The Court has found no express language or legislative history to establish that congress intended to extend the protection of sovereign immunity to any tribal entity or their contractors, other than tribal governments.

The Court held that no Defendant is immune from suit and specifically found that the Blackfeet Tribe is not immune from suit but only to the extent of the insurance policy coverage.

Download

Share

COinS