Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 958 N.W.2d 378

Background

Great Northern insured Omaha Performing Arts Society and paid for damage to the Holland Performing Arts Center caused by a Metro bus accident on October 21, 2016.
On December 7, 2016, Great Northern’s attorney mailed a certified letter titled "Statutory Notice" to "Claims Department, Omaha Metro Transit" describing the incident and estimating $340,000 in damages; the firm used Metro’s website to identify who to send the notice and did not further inquire.
The letter was signed for at Metro by "F. Winniski" and routed to Metro’s director of legal/human resources, who forwarded it to Metro’s outside counsel; outside counsel emailed that it represented Metro and asked that future correspondence be directed to it.
Great Northern filed suit in May 2018. Metro moved for summary judgment asserting Great Northern failed to comply with the PSTCA §13-905 notice requirement (wrong official and insufficient content) and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
The district court denied summary judgment, holding the December letter was a claim but should have been sent to Metro’s executive director (the official responsible for records), yet there remained genuine issues of material fact as to equitable estoppel.
On appeal both parties’ briefs lacked a properly designated assignments-of-error section; the Nebraska Supreme Court proceeded on plain-error review, found no plain error, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate briefs complied with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D) (assignments of error)	Great Northern did not properly designate cross-appeal or assignments but still argued errors in its brief	Metro likewise failed to include a proper assignments-of-error section	Court exercised discretion to review for plain error, found no plain error, and admonished rule noncompliance but proceeded to decide merits
Whether the Dec. 7, 2016 letter satisfied PSTCA § 13-905 (proper official & content)	Great Northern: the letter substantially complied and served the statute’s notice/investigation purpose	Metro: letter was not addressed to the official charged with maintaining records, was directed to wrong recipient, and read as notice of a potential future claim rather than a present written claim	District court: letter was a claim but sent to wrong official; Supreme Court: no plain error in denying SJ—genuine issues exist, so summary judgment inappropriate
Whether Metro is equitably estopped from asserting defective notice under PSTCA	Great Northern: relied on Metro’s counsel’s response and Metro’s subsequent communications/document production to believe notice requirements were met	Metro: estoppel elements (notably first, fourth, sixth) are not met as a matter of law	District court found genuine factual disputes on estoppel elements; Supreme Court affirmed denial of SJ because factual disputes preclude resolution on summary judgment
Whether summary judgment was proper on Metro’s PSTCA defense	Great Northern: disputed material facts exist (estoppel, substantial compliance)	Metro: no genuine factual dispute; entitled to SJ as matter of law	Court held summary judgment was inappropriate given reasonable, contrary inferences and unresolved factual issues; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (Neb. 2014) (explaining mandatory assignments-of-error content in appellate briefs)
Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779 (Neb. 2020) (presuit PSTCA claim-presentment requirements are procedural conditions precedent, not jurisdictional)
Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (Neb. 2003) (sets forth the six elements of equitable estoppel)
In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964 (Neb. 2011) (defines plain error and its limited application)
Estate of Schluntz v. Lower Republican NRD, 300 Neb. 582 (Neb. 2018) (addresses plain error review and appellate enforcement of briefing rules)