laware State Police" (id. at 84-85); (14) "Negligent Supervision, Hiring, Training, Discipline, and Retention by Durham County Sheriff's Department, Durham County ABC Police, Delaware State Police, State of Delaware Family Court, Delaware Attorney Generals [sic] Office and Kent County, DE Prosecutors [sic] Office" (id. at 85-87); (15) "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress by Durham County Sheriff's Department, Durham County ABC Police and Delaware State Police" (id. at 87-88); (16) "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress by Durham County Sheriff's Department, and Delaware State Police (Durham Sheriff's and Delaware State Police Statements)" (id. at 88-89); (17) "Violation of Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution" (id. at 89); and (18) "Violation of Delaware Code Ann. Tit. 10, § 4011, 10, § 4012, 10, § 4013, 10, § 4001, 10, § 4002, 10, § 4003, 10, § 4005, However, the purchase of insurance constitutes a waiver of the government entity's sovereign immunity. Holden v. Bundek, 317 A.2d 29 (Del. 1972)" (id. at 89-90). The cause of action headings in the Complaint appear in all capital letters.
(A) The legal significance of the State Insurance Program provided for in 18 Del. C. § 6501, etc., has been considered in several Superior Court cases beginning with Raughley v. Department of Health Social Serv., Del.Super., 274 A.2d 702 (1971), and continuing through Pipkin v. Department of highways Transportation, Del.Super., 316 A.2d 236 (1974) and Holden v. Bundek, Del.Super., 317 A.2d 29 (1972). But this is the first case in which this Court has been asked to consider the Act and the Program.
George Lynch, Inc. v. State, supra. While the justice of that proposition stands on its own merit, we do note also that there is a tendency (recognized by the Court below) to narrow the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Cf. Wilmington Housing Authority v. Williamson, Del. Supr., 228 A.2d 782 (1967); Holden v. Bundek, Del.Super., 317 A.2d 29 (1972). IV
A short version begins with then Judge Quillen's opinion in Holden v. Bundek, in which he quoted this raw sentiment with approval: "The entire doctrine of governmental immunity rests upon a rotten foundation, and professors, writers and liberal minded judges are of the view that it should be placed in the judicial garbage can where it belongs." 317 A.2d 29 (Del. Super. 1972). Id. at 30 (citing Talley v. Northern San Diego County Hospital Dist. 257 P.2d 22, 28 (Cal. 1953))
See, e.g., Seitz v. A-Del. Const. Co., 1987 WL 16711, at *4 (Del.Super. Aug. 13, 1987); Holden v. Bundek, 317 A.2d 29, 31 (Del.Super. 1972).See, e.g., Doe, 499 A.2d at 1181; Castetter v. Del. Dep't of Labor, 2002 WL 819244, at *4 (Del.Super.
The law of governmental immunity in Delaware as it applies to the State, the State's agencies and its policy level officers is that there is no liability in tort for policy level decisions or discretionary actions done within the scope of official duty absent wanton or reckless conduct. Holden v. Bundek, Del.Super., 317 A.2d 29 (1972); Pajewski v. Perry, Del.Super., 320 A.2d 763 (1974); and Shellburne, Inc. v. Roberts, Del.Supr., 238 A.2d 331 (1968). However, it is clear that a State police officer does not automatically fall within the category of State officials granted that form of governmental immunity mentioned in the cases cited above.