Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 941 N.W.2d 497

Great Northern sued Metro (Transit Authority of the City of Omaha) in a subrogation action under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act; Metro asserted sovereign immunity, arguing Great Northern failed to comply with the Act’s notice requirements.
Metro moved for summary judgment on sovereign-immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion, finding Metro estopped from asserting immunity after its outside counsel had responded to Great Northern’s notice.
Metro’s motion to reconsider was denied; Metro filed a notice of appeal on September 19, 2019, appealing the August 23, 2019 order denying summary judgment.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, treating the denial of summary judgment as interlocutory under § 25-1902 as it existed when the order was entered.
On September 1, 2019 (before Metro filed its notice of appeal), the Legislature amended § 25-1902 to make denials of summary judgment based on sovereign immunity final orders eligible for interlocutory appeal.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the amendment was procedural and therefore applicable when Metro filed its notice of appeal, reversing the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over Metro’s appeal of the denial of summary judgment	Great Northern: The denial was interlocutory when entered and thus not appealable; jurisdiction did not exist.	Metro: The Sept. 1, 2019 amendment to §25-1902 made the denial a final order before Metro filed its notice, so appeal was timely and proper.	The amended §25-1902 was effective before Metro filed its notice; Court of Appeals had jurisdiction.
Whether the Sept. 1, 2019 amendment to §25-1902 is procedural or substantive	Great Northern: Implicitly argued the amendment should not apply to the existing order (i.e., not retroactive to create appealability).	Metro: The amendment is procedural (changes appealability), so it applies to pending cases once effective.	The amendment is procedural and applies to pending cases; it governed Metro’s appeal.

Green v. Seiffert, 304 Neb. 212, 933 N.W.2d 590 (explaining §25-1912 is the exclusive method to invoke appellate jurisdiction)
State v. Schmailzl, 248 Neb. 314, 534 N.W.2d 743 (jurisdictional questions are reviewed as matters of law)
Fritsch v. Hilton Land & Cattle Co., 245 Neb. 469, 513 N.W.2d 534 (distinguishing substantive versus procedural statutory amendments)
Dragon v. Cheesecake Factory, 300 Neb. 548, 915 N.W.2d 418 (procedural amendments apply to pending cases while substantive ones do not)