Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha
308 Neb. 916
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Great Northern (insurer) paid for damage to Omaha Performing Arts Center after an Oct. 21, 2016 Metro bus accident and sent a certified letter dated Dec. 7, 2016 titled "Statutory Notice" to "Claims Department, Omaha Metro Transit."
- The letter described the incident, estimated $340,000 in damages, and stated "notice of a potential claim." It was signed for by an employee and forwarded to Metro’s director of legal/HR, who sent it to Metro’s outside counsel.
- Outside counsel acknowledged receipt by email on Dec. 13, 2016 and asked that future correspondence be directed to him. Great Northern later filed suit (subrogation) in May 2018 under the PSTCA.
- Metro moved for summary judgment, arguing Great Northern failed to comply with the PSTCA presuit filing requirement (§ 13-905) because the letter was not filed with the official charged with maintaining Metro’s records (the executive director) and that the letter described only a "potential" claim.
- Great Northern defended on substantial compliance and equitable estoppel grounds (reliance on Metro’s counsel and Metro’s responses/production). The district court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine issue on estoppel and that the letter was a claim but not sent to the proper official.
- On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed for plain error (both briefs lacked proper assignments of error) and affirmed the denial of summary judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSTCA §13-905 notice adequacy | Letter substantially complied and satisfied statute's purpose (timely notice) | Letter not directed to official required (executive director); called a "potential" claim, not a present claim | Court: district court permissibly found letter was a claim but not addressed to the proper official; no plain error in denying SJ |
| Equitable estoppel | Metro (via counsel) acknowledged receipt and asked to route future communications; GN relied and was misled | Metro: no false representation that relieved GN of duty to file with proper official | Court: genuine factual dispute on estoppel elements existed; triable issue precluded summary judgment |
| Appellate briefing rules (assignments of error) | GN cross-appeal argued district court reasoning was wrong | Metro argued errors available on appeal; both briefs lacked required assignments | Court: both briefs deficient, but exercised discretion to review for plain error and found none |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | GN: summary judgment improper because material facts in dispute | Metro: entitled to judgment as matter of law due to lack of strict compliance | Court: summary judgment improper where reasonable, contrary inferences exist; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529, 843 N.W.2d 655 (2014) (appellate brief assignment-of-error requirement)
- In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964, 800 N.W.2d 259 (2011) (plain-error standard and briefing requirements)
- Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779, 936 N.W.2d 924 (2020) (PSTCA presuit requirements are procedural, for notice/investigation)
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317, 664 N.W.2d 461 (2003) (elements of equitable estoppel)
- Hedglin v. Esch, 25 Neb. App. 306, 905 N.W.2d 105 (2017) (PSTCA notice purpose: allow investigation and pre-suit resolution)
- Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018) (summary judgment is an extreme remedy; deny if material facts disputed)