Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha
308 Neb. 916
Neb.2021Background
- Metro bus collided with property at the Holland Performing Arts Center on Oct. 21, 2016; Great Northern (insurer) paid the insured and pursued subrogation under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA).
- On Dec. 7, 2016, Great Northern’s counsel mailed a certified letter titled “Statutory Notice” addressed to “Claims Department, Omaha Metro Transit,” estimating $340,000 in damages; no further effort was made to identify the specific official required by § 13-905.
- The letter was signed for by “F. Winniski,” delivered to Metro’s director of legal/human resources, who forwarded it to outside counsel; outside counsel acknowledged receipt and asked that future communications go to the firm.
- Great Northern sued Metro in May 2018; Metro moved for summary judgment asserting failure to comply with PSTCA notice requirements and denying it was equitably estopped from asserting that defense.
- The district court denied Metro’s motion: it held the letter was a claim but not addressed to the official required by § 13-905, and found a genuine issue of fact on whether Metro was equitably estopped from asserting noncompliance.
- Both appellate briefs lacked a separate assignments-of-error section; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed for plain error, found none, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with § 13-905 (was the Dec. 7 letter a proper claim/notice?) | Letter substantially complied and fulfilled statute’s purpose of notice and investigation. | Letter was not addressed to the official whose duty it is to maintain records and merely warned of a potential future claim (not a claim). | Court upheld district court’s view that letter was a claim but was not sent to the required official; no plain error in that ruling. |
| Equitable estoppel (can Metro assert failure-to-notify defense?) | Great Northern: Metro’s counsel’s acknowledgment and conduct induced reliance; Metro should be estopped. | Metro: Elements of estoppel (including falsity, ignorance, and detrimental change of position) are not met as a matter of law. | Genuine factual dispute exists about estoppel elements; thus estoppel is for the trier of fact and summary judgment was improper. |
| Substantial compliance doctrine (applies when notice sent to wrong official) | Great Northern: substantial compliance should excuse any technical defect in recipient. | Metro: substantial compliance does not apply because the statute mandates filing with the official charged with records. | Court found no plain error in the district court’s treatment (rejection) of substantial-compliance argument; factual issues remain. |
| Appellate brief rule noncompliance (no assignments of error) | Parties did not properly present assignments; no specific argument to cure defect. | Metro and Great Northern both failed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1). | Court exercised discretion to review for plain error, found none, and proceeded to resolve merits accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (2014) (explaining mandatory assignments-of-error requirements and consequences of noncompliance)
- In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964 (2011) (plain-error standard and briefing requirements)
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (2003) (six-element formulation of equitable estoppel)
- Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779 (2020) (PSTCA presuit presentment requirements are procedural and aim to give government notice)
- Hedglin v. Esch, 25 Neb. App. 306 (2017) (characterizing PSTCA presuit procedures as conditions precedent)
- Doe v. Zedek, 255 Neb. 963 (1999) (denial or overruling of summary judgment does not decide the merits; remand for further proceedings)