Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan's
297 Neb. 435
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Lori Greenwood was injured on January 14, 2012 while working for J.J. Hooligan’s and filed a workers’ compensation claim naming the employer and FirstComp Insurance Company.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, asserting it had validly cancelled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment before the accident by sending a certified-mail notice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp offered employee affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 notice date, a certified-mail tracking number, and notice to the Workers’ Compensation Court; it did not produce a return receipt or direct proof of deposit with USPS.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had complied with § 48-144.03, ruled the policy was cancelled effective November 19, 2011, and dismissed FirstComp as a defendant.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether FirstComp presented sufficient competent evidence that it sent the required certified-mail notice to the employer and whether dismissal was proper.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding FirstComp failed to prove compliance with the statutory certified-mail requirement (tracking number and affidavits alone were insufficient without evidence describing the electronic mailing process or direct proof of deposit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FirstComp complied with § 48-144.03 by sending the required certified-mail cancellation notice to the employer | Greenwood: FirstComp produced no return receipt or admissible proof of mailing; a tracking number alone is insufficient and there is a genuine fact issue | FirstComp: Employee affidavits, internal records, tracking number, and notice to the court show the notice was sent via an electronic USPS certified-mail system | Court: Reversed—insurer failed to present sufficient competent evidence of mailing; tracking number and bare affidavit of an electronic system without detail do not meet proof requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (2016) (discusses standards for proof of mailing and related evidentiary issues)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (1990) (affidavit that a document was placed in a courthouse or internal mail chute insufficient to prove mailing)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (1992) (mailing presumption requires proof of a USPS depository or consistent office mailing practice)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (2017) (appellate courts need not address issues unnecessary to resolution of the case)