Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha
308 Neb. 916
| Neb. | 2021Background
- On Oct. 21, 2016 a Metro (Transit Authority of the City of Omaha) bus collided with property at the Holland Performing Arts Center; Great Northern insured Omaha Performing Arts Society and paid the claim.
- Great Northern’s counsel mailed a certified letter dated Dec. 7, 2016 titled “Statutory Notice” addressed to “Claims Department, Omaha Metro Transit,” after checking Metro’s website but not identifying a specific official.
- The letter was signed for on Dec. 12, 2016 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 that further correspondence be directed to the firm.
- Great Northern sued Metro in May 2018 seeking subrogation recovery; Metro raised as an affirmative defense failure to comply with the PSTCA presuit notice requirement (§ 13-905).
- The district court denied Metro’s motion for summary judgment, concluding Great Northern did not send the notice to the official charged with maintaining Metro’s records (the executive director), but found a genuine factual dispute over equitable estoppel.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed for plain error (both briefs lacked a separate assignments-of-error section) and affirmed the denial of summary judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with PSTCA §13-905 (was the Dec. 7 letter a valid claim/notice?) | Great Northern: letter substantially complied and fulfilled statute’s purpose (gave timely notice). | Metro: letter was not addressed to official charged with records (executive director) and was only a notice of a potential future claim, not a present written claim. | Court: no plain error in district court’s view that letter was not sent to the proper official; summary judgment inappropriate because factual disputes remained. |
| Equitable estoppel (can Metro assert failure-to-notice defense?) | Great Northern: Metro’s counsel’s acknowledgement and subsequent communications, plus document production, support estoppel. | Metro: as a matter of law elements of estoppel (false representation, reliance, change of position) are not met. | Court: genuine issues of material fact exist on equitable estoppel; not appropriate for summary judgment. |
| Appellate briefing defect (no assignments of error) | Great Northern: cross‑arguments presented but no separate assignments section. | Metro: also failed to include required assignments. | Court: elected plain error review (per rules), found no plain error and proceeded to decide; parties’ briefing deficiencies noted but outcome affirmed. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Great Northern: disputes over material facts (estoppel) preclude SJ. | Metro: argued as a matter of law GN failed PSTCA notice and SJ should be entered. | Court: summary judgment was improper because reasonable, contrary inferences exist; denial affirmed and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (Neb. 2014) (requirement that briefs contain a separately numbered assignments-of-error section)
- Saylor v. State, 306 Neb. 147 (Neb. 2020) (PSTCA presuit claim procedures are conditions precedent and not jurisdictional; review of notice requirements is a question of law when facts are undisputed)
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (Neb. 2003) (set out six elements for equitable estoppel)
- Hedglin v. Esch, 25 Neb. App. 306 (Neb. App. 2017) (PSTCA presuit procedures characterized as administrative conditions precedent)
- McKinney v. Okoye, 287 Neb. 261 (Neb. 2014) (summary judgment is an extreme remedial device)
- Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710 (Neb. 2018) (summary judgment improper where reasonable contrary inferences exist)