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 cancelled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment and had given the statutorily required notice before the accident.
- FirstComp introduced three exhibits: employee affidavits (stating a certified-mail notice was sent, providing a USPS tracking number, and describing internal records), an internal spreadsheet indicating a November 3, 2011 mailing date, and proof-of-coverage pages showing cancellation effective November 19, 2011.
- Greenwood argued FirstComp offered no return receipt or adequate evidence of mailing practice and that a tracking number alone does not prove certified mailing.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03 and dismissed FirstComp; Greenwood appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FirstComp prove it sent the employer the required certified-mail cancellation notice under § 48-144.03? | Greenwood: FirstComp did not produce a return receipt or proof of office mailing practice; tracking number alone is insufficient. | FirstComp: Employee affidavits, internal records, and a USPS tracking number show the notice was sent by certified mail. | Court: Reversed — evidence was insufficient. Tracking number and affidavits without detail of mailing practice or proof of deposit did not establish certified mailing. |
| Was dismissal of FirstComp proper because the policy was effectively cancelled before the injury? | Greenwood: Because notice was not proven, FirstComp remained potentially liable; dismissal was premature. | FirstComp: Cancellation was effective Nov. 19, 2011, so it was not the carrier at the time of injury. | Court: Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (supports standard on mailing proof and factual disputes over mail service)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (office mail chute testimony insufficient to establish mailing to USPS depository)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (affidavit of placing mail in local depository insufficient as matter of law without proof of USPS depository or collection practice)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (appellate courts need not address unnecessary issues)