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

Background

On Oct. 21, 2016, a Metro (Transit Authority of the City of Omaha) bus collided with property at the Holland Performing Arts Center insured by Great Northern; Great Northern paid the claim.
Great Northern’s attorney mailed a certified letter dated Dec. 7, 2016, labeled "Statutory Notice" to "Claims Department, Omaha Metro Transit" after checking Metro’s website for claim contact information; no further inquiry was made.
The letter was signed for Dec. 12, 2016, by "F. Winniski," delivered to Metro’s director of legal/human resources, who forwarded it to Metro’s outside counsel; outside counsel acknowledged receipt and asked that future communications be directed to him.
Great Northern sued Metro in May 2018 seeking subrogation under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA); Metro asserted as an affirmative defense that Great Northern failed to comply with the PSTCA’s presuit notice requirement (§ 13-905).
Great Northern pleaded equitable estoppel (and substantial compliance) in the alternative; Metro moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the letter was not a § 13-905 claim because it was addressed to the wrong official and was a "potential" claim, and (2) estoppel did not apply.
The district court denied Metro’s motion, finding the Dec. 7 letter constituted a claim but was not sent to the official charged with keeping Metro’s records, and that genuine issues of material fact existed on equitable estoppel; Metro appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Dec. 7, 2016 letter satisfied PSTCA § 13-905 (was it a written claim and properly filed)	Great Northern: letter substantially complied; it gave date, incident, and damages and fulfilled statute’s notice purpose	Metro: letter was addressed to wrong official, was only a "potential" claim, and thus did not meet § 13-905 strictures	Court: No plain error in district court’s finding that letter was a claim but was not sent to the official charged with maintaining records; summary judgment inappropriate on this ground
Whether Metro is equitably estopped from asserting the PSTCA notice defense	Great Northern: Metro (via its director and outside counsel) received, acknowledged, and handled the letter; Great Northern relied on Metro’s responses and production — estoppel should bar the defense	Metro: no false representation; lacked elements (first, fourth, sixth) of equitable estoppel as a matter of law	Court: Genuine issues of material fact exist as to equitable estoppel elements; summary judgment improper
Whether the trial court erred in its reasoning about substantial compliance and notice recipient	Great Northern: district court wrongly held letter not to proper party and misapplied substantial compliance doctrine	Metro: district court properly required notice to official who maintains records; no substantial compliance	Court: Even if district court’s reasoning contained arguable errors, none rose to plain error; denial of summary judgment affirmed
Whether appellate briefs’ lack of formal assignments of error forfeits review or permits plain error review	Metro/Great Northern: arguments proceeded without a separate assignments-of-error section	—	Court: Both briefs violated Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109; the court exercised discretion to review for plain error and found none

Key Cases Cited

Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (2014) (appellate-briefing requirements and consequences of noncompliance)
In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964 (2011) (plain-error standard)
Saylor v. State, 306 Neb. 147 (2020) (PSTCA presuit procedures are procedural, not jurisdictional)
Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (2003) (elements of equitable estoppel)
McKinney v. Okoye, 287 Neb. 261 (2014) (summary-judgment is an extreme remedy; standards for granting relief)
Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710 (2019) (summary judgment inappropriate where evidence supports reasonable, contrary inferences)