and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” Id. at 195, 109 S.Ct. at 1003. Despite the foregoing, however, DeShaney also included language indicating that its holding did not necessarily apply to all circumstances. The Court acknowledged that if the state takes a person into custody and holds that person involuntarily, the Constitution imposes a duty to assume responsibility for the person’s care and well-being. Id. at 199-200, 109 S.Ct. at 1005-1006 (citing Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 317, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2458-2459, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (“When a person is institutionalized — and wholly dependent on the State[,] ... a duty to provide certain services and care does exist.”)); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Second, the Supreme Court implied that a
holding government could be liable for breach of a contractual obligation to purchase insurance for plaintiff holding that a state is required to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals holding that the state has no obligation to provide adequate housing holding that government has obligation to provide for health needs of incarcerated prisoners holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation