before the Court of Claims. We have dealt here solely with the issue presented:” the extent of the non-dele-gable, non-diseretionary duty of the Court of Claims in the circumstances presented to us. We leave to the Legislature the resolution of this and other like claims. For the reasons stated, we deny Petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus. Writ denied. 1 . Petitioner’s suit against the DOT was permitted by West Virginia Code § 29-12-5(a) (1996) (Repl.Vol.1999), which ”estop[s] [the State] from relying upon the constitutional immunity of the state of West Virginia” where policies of insurance are purchased by the State Board of Risk and Insurance Management. See also Syl. Pt. 2, Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 172 W.Va. 743, 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983) (<HOLDING>). 2 . According to the allegations of the
holding suits against state officials for monetary damages impermissible where the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state rather than against the officer in his individual capacity holding that the irs has notice of plaintiffs alternate ground of recovery because it had considered and evaluated the applicability of the code provision under which the plaintiff sought recovery holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations holding that suits which seek no recovery from state funds but rather allege that recovery is sought under and up to the limits of the states liability insurance coverage fall outside the traditional constitutional bar to suits against the state