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 (formerly Pies & Pints) and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- Greenwood sued J.J. Hooligan’s and FirstComp Insurance Company; FirstComp moved to dismiss, claiming it had canceled the policy for nonpayment before the injury under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp submitted affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 notice, a copy of the cancellation notice, a USPS-certified-mail tracking number, and proof that the Workers’ Compensation Court received cancellation notice in November 2011.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had timely sent the employer notice by certified mail and dismissed FirstComp as a defendant.
- On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether FirstComp proved compliance with the statute’s certified-mail requirement and whether the dismissal was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer proved compliance with § 48-144.03 employer-notice requirement (certified mail) | Greenwood: FirstComp failed to produce a return receipt or evidence of office mailing practice; tracking number alone is insufficient | FirstComp: affidavits, internal records, tracking number, and court notice show certified-mail notice was sent | Court: Reversed — insufficient competent evidence that notice was mailed as required; tracking number and bare testimony were inadequate without proof of deposit or detailed mailing practice |
| Whether dismissal of FirstComp was proper because it was not insurer at time of loss | Greenwood: dismissal improper absent proof of valid cancellation before injury | FirstComp: cancellation effective Nov. 19, 2011, so not carrier on Jan. 14, 2012 | Court: Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings because cancellation was not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (Neb. 2016) (proof required to establish mailing under statutory notice rules)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (Neb. 1990) (office-mail testimony insufficient to prove mailing without evidence of USPS depository or collection practice)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (Neb. 1992) (receipt-of-mail presumption requires proof of a mail collection system tied to USPS depositories)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2017) (appellate courts need not address unnecessary issues on appeal)