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 learned FirstComp claimed it was not the insurer on the date of injury due to cancellation for nonpayment.
- Greenwood sued J.J. Hooligan’s and FirstComp for workers’ compensation benefits; FirstComp moved to dismiss, claiming it had properly canceled the policy under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03 before the accident.
- FirstComp submitted three exhibits: employee affidavits stating a cancellation notice was sent by certified mail (with a USPS-generated tracking number), an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 send date, and proof the compensation court received cancellation notice and noted policy canceled November 19, 2011.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had timely sent the certified-mail cancellation and dismissed FirstComp as a defendant.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether FirstComp proved compliance with § 48-144.03’s employer-notice requirement (mailing by certified mail) and whether the evidence was sufficient to support dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurer proved it sent the statutory certified‑mail notice to employer under § 48-144.03 | Greenwood: FirstComp did not produce a return receipt or proof of actual deposit or an adequate office‑practice showing; tracking number alone insufficient | FirstComp: Employee affidavits, internal records, and USPS tracking number prove notice was sent by certified mail | Court: Reversed dismissal — evidence insufficient; tracking number and bare affidavits did not prove mailing or describe the electronic mailing process |
| Whether insurer met its burden to establish effective cancellation before loss | Greenwood: Burden on insurer not met without proof of mailing | FirstComp: Established cancellation by providing notice to court and internal records | Court: Held insurer failed to meet burden; cancellation not proven as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (discusses mailing proof standards)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (insufficient affidavit of mailing where deposit into unspecified depository was alleged)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (mailing presumption requires proof of USPS depository or consistent office practice)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)