Nyamatore v. Schuerman
25 Neb. Ct. App. 209
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 19, 2015, Eunice Nyamatore was injured in a bus accident operated by Omaha Transit Authority (OTA).
- Nyamatore’s counsel sent a written notice of claim dated July 9, 2015 to OTA’s legal and human resources director, Edith A. Simpson; OTA’s executive director (Curt Simon) was the official statutorily charged with maintaining OTA’s records.
- Simpson responded with settlement communications (April 15, 2016 and May 13, 2016); Nyamatore filed suit on May 5, 2016 — within one year of the accident but the notice had been sent to Simpson, not the designated official.
- OTA asserted as an affirmative defense that Nyamatore failed to comply with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) notice requirement, and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for OTA; Nyamatore appealed, arguing (1) she substantially complied with the PSTCA notice requirement and (2) equitable estoppel should bar OTA from asserting noncompliance.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding strict statutory filing requirements control and equitable estoppel did not apply under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nyamatore’s letter to OTA’s HR/legal director satisfied the PSTCA notice requirement | Nyamatore: letter to Simpson put OTA on notice; substantial compliance because OTA received and negotiated the claim | OTA: PSTCA requires filing with the official charged with maintaining records (executive director); notice to a nondesignated official is insufficient | Held: Notice invalid — plaintiff failed to file with the statutorily designated official; substantial compliance inapplicable when not filed with designated recipient |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents OTA from asserting statutory noncompliance | Nyamatore: Simpson’s settlement communications led counsel to rely on OTA’s receipt and handling of the claim | OTA: No misrepresentation about proper filing; claimant’s counsel had means to learn filing requirements; no compelling circumstances to estop a governmental entity | Held: Equitable estoppel does not apply; no affirmative misrepresentation, and doctrine is disfavored against government absent compelling circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (statutory-designated recipient requirement; notice to nondesignated official insufficient)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (strict compliance with PSTCA notice requirement; filing with nondesignated official does not satisfy statute)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40 (substantial compliance not available when claim is not filed with statutorily designated recipient)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533 (settlement communications alone do not estop municipality from asserting PSTCA noncompliance)
- Lowe v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 17 Neb. App. 419 (equitable estoppel applied where claimant was affirmatively misled about filing location)
- Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842 (standard for appellate review of equitable-estoppel issues)
- King v. State, 260 Neb. 14 (waivers of sovereign immunity strictly construed)