Id. Conversely, the doctrine of sovereign immunity will apply to protect a state entity from an action for temporary nuisance seeking damages for loss of comfort and health. Page v.Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist. , 377 S.W.2d 348, 353 (Mo. 1964); Verda v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Comm'n , 715 S.W.2d 18 (Mo.App.E.D. 1986); Gamache v. Missouri Highway and Transp.Comm'n , 712 S.W.2d 734, 736 (Mo.App.W.D. 1986). Where a plaintiff's temporary nuisance claim is one solely of tort liability for consequential damages, sovereign immunity applies to protect the state entity from liability for the nuisance claim.
The amendment added § 537.600.2 which states: "The express waiver of sovereign immunity in the instances specified in subdivisions (1) and (2) of subsection 1 of this section are absolute waivers of sovereign immunity in all cases within such situations whether or not the public entity was functioning in a governmental or proprietary capacity and whether or not the public entity is covered by a liability insurance for tort." See Asher v. Department of Corrections, 727 S.W.2d 155 (Mo.App. 1987); Sanderson v. Cincinnati Shaper Co. Inc., 725 S.W.2d 931, 932 (Mo.App. 1987); Kurz v. City of St. Louis, 716 S.W.2d 911, 911 (Mo.App. 1986); Gamache v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 712 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Mo.App. 1986). The holdings in each case recognize that § 537.600.2 eliminates the purchase of insurance as a condition to the waiver of sovereign immunity in those instances specified in § 537.600.1(1) and (2).
Other cases have dealt with accidents involving state motor vehicles and dangerous conditions on state property. State ex rel. Missouri Highway Transportation Commission v. Appelquist, 698 S.W.2d 883 (Mo.App. 1985); Anderson v. State, 709 S.W.2d 893 (Mo.App. 1986); Gamache v. Missouri Highway Transportation Commission, 712 S.W.2d 734 (Mo.App. 1986). All of these cases involved events predating the adoption of § 105.711 and may therefore be construed not to be directly authoritative on the contention raised by appellant here.
As § 34.260 does not expand the waiver of sovereign immunity in §§ 537.600-610, RSMo (1978), which includes the insurance condition to a waiver of sovereign immunity, it does not afford relief to this plaintiff. See Anderson, 709 S.W.2d at 895-96; State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transportation Comm'n v. Appelquist, 698 S.W.2d 883, 892-95 (Mo.App. 1985) (on motion for rehearing); see also Gamache v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Comm'n, 712 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Mo.App. 1986). Judgment affirmed.