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). She sued her employer and FirstComp Insurance seeking workers’ compensation benefits.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, asserting it had canceled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment before the injury under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp introduced employee affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 notice entry, a copy of the cancellation notice, and a certified-mail tracking number generated by USPS; no return receipt or direct proof of deposit was produced.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had timely sent notice by certified mail, held the policy canceled effective November 19, 2011, and dismissed FirstComp as a party.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether FirstComp produced sufficient competent evidence that it mailed the required employer cancellation notice under § 48-144.03.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer proved compliance with § 48-144.03 employer-notice requirement | Greenwood: tracking number + affidavits insufficient; no return receipt or proven mailing practice | FirstComp: tracking number, employee affidavits, and court notice suffice to show notice was sent by certified mail | Court: Reversed — FirstComp failed to present sufficient competent evidence that it mailed the notice to employer |
| Whether a USPS tracking number alone or bare affidavit of system use establishes certified-mail service | Greenwood: tracking number alone does not prove mailing; must show direct deposit or established office mailing practice | FirstComp: tracking number and description that it uses an electronic USPS system proves mailing | Court: Tracking number alone is insufficient; insurer must show either direct proof of deposit or detailed evidence of consistent office practice or explain electronic system that produces certified-mail service |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586, 883 N.W.2d 676 (Neb. 2016) (discusses standards for proving mailing and related evidentiary issues)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635, 456 N.W.2d 750 (Neb. 1990) (affidavit that a document was placed in an outgoing mail receptacle without proof of USPS depository is insufficient as a matter of law to prove mailing)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14, 480 N.W.2d 192 (Neb. 1992) (mail-chute deposit without proof the chute led to a USPS depository fails to establish receipt-of-mail presumption)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228, 892 N.W.2d 857 (Neb. 2017) (appellate courts need not address issues unnecessary to the decision)