Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan's
297 Neb. 435
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Lori Greenwood was injured on January 14, 2012 while employed by J.J. Hooligan’s (formerly Pies & Pints) and later filed a workers’ compensation petition naming J.J. Hooligan’s and FirstComp Insurance Co.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, claiming it had canceled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment effective November 19, 2011, and thus was not the carrier at the time of the accident.
- FirstComp submitted 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’s electronic mailing system.
- Greenwood challenged FirstComp’s proof, noting no return receipt, no direct proof of deposit with USPS, and inadequate evidence describing the insurer’s electronic certified-mail process or office mailing practices.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03 and dismissed FirstComp; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, concluding the insurer failed to present sufficient competent evidence of mailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FirstComp proved compliance with § 48-144.03 by sending certified-mail notice of cancellation to the employer | Greenwood: FirstComp presented no return receipt or direct USPS deposit proof and failed to show an office practice or describe its electronic mailing process; tracking number alone is insufficient | FirstComp: Employee affidavits, internal records, copy of the notice, and a USPS-generated certified-mail tracking number establish the notice was sent | Court: Reversed dismissal — insurer failed to present sufficient competent evidence of mailing; tracking number and generalized affidavit without detail of electronic mailing procedure or direct deposit proof were inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (Neb. 2016) (discusses standards for proving mailing and receipt in workers’ compensation context)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (Neb. 1990) (affidavit of mailing to an office mail chute insufficient to prove proper mailing)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (Neb. 1992) (no receipt-of-mail presumption where plaintiff failed to show mailroom was USPS depository or consistent collection practice)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2017) (appellate courts need not address unnecessary issues when reversing on primary grounds)