The Court of Appeals affirmed as to the City, solely on the ground of sovereign immunity. See Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178 (1), (2), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019). This Court granted certiorari to consider the contours of municipal immunity with respect to nuisance claims.

The Court of Appeals would have reached the right result in this case had it followed its analogous precedent. In Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019), a college student died after being beaten to death by a bouncer in a bar and left to die outside. See id. at 178-179, 834 S.E.2d 623.

(Emphasis added in Defendants’ appellate brief.) In support of such argument, the City relied on principles underlying cases such as Dugger v. Sprouse , 257 Ga. 778, 779, 364 S.E.2d 275 (1988) ("[W]here the plain terms of the policy provide that there is no coverage for the particular claim, the policy does not create a waiver of sovereign immunity as to that claim."), and Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 183-184 (2), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019) (finding no waiver of sovereign immunity where the city's insurance policy included language: "We have no duty to pay damages on your behalf under this policy unless the defenses of sovereign and governmental immunity are inapplicable to you.... This policy and any coverages associated therewith does not constitute, nor reflect an intent by you, to waive or forego any defenses of sovereign and governmental immunity available to any Insured, whether based upon statute(s), common law or otherwise, including Georgia Code Section 36-33-1, or any amendments"), affirmed on other grounds, 312 Ga. 164, 860 S.E.2d 713 (2021) (addressing whether the city's conduct fell within a so-called "nuisance exception" to sovereign immunity). Without elaboration, the trial court concluded in its order that "the language in the City's of Monroe's Insurance Plan makes clear that Sovereign Immunity is not waived[.]"

Atlantic contends the trial court erred by holding as a matter of law that the policy's limits are $5 million for Plaintiffs’ claims because the policy's endorsements exempt it from the statutory language that increases the waiver to the amount of insurance coverage. Atlantic asserts that this Court's recent decision in Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 183-185 (2), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019) is dispositive of this case because as Atlantic alleges, the endorsements preserve the City's sovereign immunity beyond the required $700,000 statutory waiver under OCGA § 36-92-2. Moreover, Atlantic contends that to find otherwise would effectively render the endorsements meaningless in direct contravention of Georgia law.

OCGA § 36-33-1 (b). See also Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 181 (1), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019). The applicability of sovereign immunity to claims brought against the State is a jurisdictional issue.

City of Atlanta v. Mitcham, 296 Ga. 576, 577-578 (1) (769 S.E.2d 320) (2015)." Gatto v. City of Statesboro, 353 Ga.App. 178, 181-182 (1) (834 S.E.2d 623) (2019). Lastly, and importantly, municipal immunity is not in the nature of an affirmative defense but rather speaks to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Also, the order does not address the fact that REEA admitted in discovery responses that Wilson, Grillo, and Cousineau were "individuals employed by [REEA]" at the time of the shooting, and "all employees of [REEA]" could be contacted through REEA's counsel. Gatto v. City of Statesboro, 353 Ga.App. 178, 187 (4) (834 S.E.2d 623) (2019). 2. Turning to the cross-appeal by Cousineau and REEA, they challenge the trial court's ruling to the extent that it was predicated on (a) a potential breach of a duty owed to Morris under the theory of a negligent undertaking, and (b) proximate causation.

Also, the order does not address the fact that REEA admitted in discovery responses that Wilson, Grillo, and Cousineau were "individuals employed by [REEA]" at the time of the shooting, and "all employees of [REEA]" could be contacted through REEA's counsel.Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 187 (4), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019). 2. Turning to the cross-appeal by Cousineau and REEA, they challenge the trial court's ruling to the extent that it was predicated on (a) a potential breach of a duty owed to Morris under the theory of a negligent undertaking, and (b) proximate causation.

OCGA § 36-33-1 (a). Courts are to specifically analyze the language of an insurance policy at issue to determine whether it "actually provide[s] coverage for a plaintiff's claims for damages." Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 184 (2), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019), aff'd Gatto v. City of Statesboro , ––– Ga. ––––, ––––, 860 S.E.2d 713 (2021). In Georgia, insurance is a matter of contract, and the parties to an insurance policy are bound by its plain and unambiguous terms.

City of Atlanta v. Mitcham , 296 Ga. 576, 577-578 (1), 769 S.E.2d 320 (2015)." Gatto v. City of Statesboro , 353 Ga. App. 178, 181-182 (1), 834 S.E.2d 623 (2019). Lastly, and importantly, municipal immunity is not in the nature of an affirmative defense but rather speaks to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.