Nyamatore v. Schuerman
25 Neb. Ct. App. 209
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- On June 19, 2015, Eunice Nyamatore was injured as a passenger in an Omaha Transit Authority (OTA) bus accident.
- On July 9, 2015 (within one year), Nyamatore’s counsel sent a written notice of claim to Edith Simpson, OTA’s legal and human resources director; the letter named Simpson as sole recipient.
- The OTA executive director (Curt Simon) was the only official statutorily charged with maintaining OTA’s official records under § 13-905; Simpson never held that role and was not the designated recordkeeper.
- Simpson, on OTA’s behalf, later exchanged letters with Nyamatore’s counsel (including settlement offers) in April and May 2016; Nyamatore filed suit May 5, 2016.
- OTA pleaded failure to comply with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) notice requirement as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for OTA, and Nyamatore appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nyamatore’s notice to Simpson satisfied PSTCA § 13-905 (proper presentment to official recordkeeper) | Nyamatore: substantial compliance; sending notice to Simpson put OTA on notice and Simpson’s settlement communications show authority | OTA: statute requires filing with the official whose duty is to maintain records (executive director); Simpson was not that official, so notice defective | Court held notice was insufficient; strict statutory recipient requirement controls, summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents OTA from asserting notice defect | Nyamatore: Simpson’s settlement offers and communications induced reliance and conveyed that OTA had notice | OTA: no affirmative misrepresentation about where claims must be filed; claimant had means to learn statutory procedure; no compelling circumstances to estop a government entity | Court held equitable estoppel does not apply; no evidence of misleading affirmative representation or inability to discover correct filing method |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipley v. Department of Roads, 283 Neb. 832, 813 N.W.2d 455 (2012) (PSTCA waivers construed strictly in favor of sovereign)
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317, 664 N.W.2d 461 (2003) (notice must be filed with official designated to maintain records; filing with human resources director was ineffective)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40, 752 N.W.2d 132 (2008) (substantial compliance not applicable when claim is not filed with designated recipient)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879, 857 N.W.2d 789 (2015) (filing with non-designated official does not satisfy PSTCA absent misrepresentation or de facto status)
- Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842, 885 N.W.2d 44 (2016) (equitable estoppel standards in equity appeals)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533, 441 N.W.2d 846 (1989) (communications from city officials did not estop enforcement of PSTCA filing requirements)
- Lowe v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 17 Neb. App. 419, 766 N.W.2d 408 (2009) (estoppel applied where claimant received affirmative, incorrect filing instructions and acknowledgement)
- Jill B. & Travis B. v. State, 297 Neb. 57, 899 N.W.2d 241 (2017) (reiterates strict compliance with statutory requirements when sovereign immunity waived)