Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan's
899 N.W.2d 905
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Lori Greenwood was injured on January 14, 2012 while working for J.J. Hooligan’s (formerly Pies & Pints, LLC). She sued her employer and FirstComp Insurance Company seeking workers’ compensation benefits.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, asserting it had canceled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment before the injury in compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp submitted employee affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing notice sent, a certified-mail tracking number, and proof the Workers’ Compensation Court received notice and listed the policy as canceled effective November 19, 2011.
- Greenwood argued FirstComp produced no return receipt, no direct proof of deposit with USPS, and insufficient evidence of an office mailing practice to support a presumption that the certified-mail notice was actually mailed.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had complied with § 48-144.03 and dismissed FirstComp as a defendant. Greenwood appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding FirstComp failed to present sufficient competent evidence that it mailed the cancellation notice by certified mail as required by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greenwood) | Defendant's Argument (FirstComp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FirstComp comply with § 48-144.03’s employer notice requirement (mailing by certified mail) before terminating the policy? | FirstComp produced no return receipt or direct proof of deposit; tracking number alone insufficient; no proven office practice to support mailing inference. | Employee affidavits, internal record showing notice date, certified-mail tracking number, and notice to the court prove the notice was sent. | Reversed: evidence insufficient. Tracking number and affidavit without proof of deposit or a detailed mailing-practice foundation do not prove certified mailing under § 48-144.03. |
| Was dismissal of FirstComp as a party appropriate based on the alleged cancellation? | Dismissal improper because cancellation was not established. | Dismissal proper if cancellation was effective before injury. | Reversed dismissal. Because statutory mailing was not proved, FirstComp remained a proper party and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (explains standards for proving mailing and evidentiary sufficiency)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (affidavit of mail placement insufficient as matter of law without proof of USPS depository or regular collection practice)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (office mail chute testimony insufficient to establish U.S. mail deposit presumption)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (appellate courts need not address unnecessary arguments)