Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916

Great Northern insured Omaha Performing Arts Society and paid for damage to the Holland Performing Arts Center after an Oct. 21, 2016 Metro bus accident; it filed a subrogation suit against Metro under the PSTCA.
On Dec. 7, 2016 Great Northern’s attorney mailed a certified letter titled “Statutory Notice” to “Claims Department, Omaha Metro Transit,” stating the incident date and estimated damages and asking Metro to consider it notice of a potential claim.
The letter was signed for at Metro by “F. Winniski” and delivered to Metro’s director of legal/human resources, who forwarded it to Metro’s outside counsel; outside counsel acknowledged receipt and asked future correspondence be sent to him.
Great Northern sued in May 2018; Metro moved for summary judgment asserting failure to comply with PSTCA § 13-905 (notice must be filed with the official who maintains the political subdivision’s records—the executive director) and arguing the letter was only notice of a potential future claim.
The district court denied summary judgment, concluding the letter was a claim but was delivered to the wrong official and that a genuine issue existed whether Metro was equitably estopped from asserting the notice defense.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed for plain error (both briefs lacked a proper assignments-of-error section), found no plain error, affirmed denial of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with PSTCA §13-905 (was the Dec. 7 letter a valid claim and properly addressed?)	Letter substantially complied and satisfied PSTCA’s notice purpose.	Letter was not filed with the official responsible for records (executive director) and merely purported to notify of a potential future claim.	District court found the letter was a claim but sent to the wrong official; Supreme Court found no plain error in denying MSJ.
Equitable estoppel (can Metro assert the notice defect?)	Metro’s counsel acknowledged receipt and Metro’s responses and document production induced reliance; estoppel bars the defense.	Elements of estoppel (esp. false representation, plaintiff’s ignorance, reliance causing change in position) are not satisfied as a matter of law.	Genuine factual dispute exists on estoppel elements; summary judgment inappropriate.
Appellate briefing rules (assignments of error absent)	N/A (Great Northern cross‑appealed but neither brief included a proper assignments-of-error section).	N/A	Court emphasized mandatory rule but exercised discretion to review for plain error; found none.
Use of summary judgment (was MSJ proper?)	Material facts disputed; MSJ is an extreme remedy and should be denied.	Metro contends no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.	Summary judgment was properly denied because reasonable, contrary inferences exist; case remanded for further proceedings.

Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529, 843 N.W.2d 655 (discussing mandatory assignments-of-error requirements in appellate briefs)
In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964, 800 N.W.2d 259 (headings in argument are not a substitute for a separately designated assignments-of-error section)
Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779, 936 N.W.2d 924 (PSTCA presuit presentment requirements are procedural, not jurisdictional)
Saylor v. State, 306 Neb. 147, 944 N.W.2d 726 (appellate review of PSTCA notice compliance is de novo where facts undisputed)
Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317, 664 N.W.2d 461 (sets out the six elements of equitable estoppel in this context)
Hedglin v. Esch, 25 Neb. App. 306, 905 N.W.2d 105 (explaining PSTCA presuit claim procedures and their purpose)
McKinney v. Okoye, 287 Neb. 261, 842 N.W.2d 581 (summary judgment is an extreme remedy and should not resolve genuine factual disputes)
Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (summary judgment standard: cannot grant if evidence supports reasonable, contrary inferences)
Estate of Schluntz v. Lower Republican NRD, 300 Neb. 582, 915 N.W.2d 427 (overruling MSJ does not decide issues of fact; parties may litigate those issues on remand)