Nyamatore v. Schuerman
25 Neb. Ct. App. 209
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 19, 2015, Eunice Nyamatore was injured in an OTA-owned bus accident and, through counsel, sent a written notice of claim dated July 9, 2015 to OTA’s legal and human resources director, Edith Simpson.
- Simpson was not the official statutorily designated recordkeeper; Curt Simon, OTA’s executive director, was the only official with the duty to maintain OTA’s official records under § 13-905.
- Simpson responded months later (April 15, 2016) and engaged in settlement communications, including a May 13, 2016 letter offering settlement, after Nyamatore had filed suit on May 5, 2016 (about 11 months after the accident).
- OTA asserted as an affirmative defense that Nyamatore failed to comply with the PSTCA notice requirement (claims must be filed with the clerk/secretary or other official whose duty is to maintain official records, or with a law department if authorized).
- The district court granted OTA’s summary judgment motion, finding Nyamatore failed to comply with § 13-905 and that equitable estoppel did not apply; Nyamatore appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nyamatore’s notice to OTA satisfied PSTCA § 13-905 | Nyamatore: substantial compliance; Simpson’s receipt and settlement offers put OTA on notice | OTA: notice was not filed with the official recordkeeper required by statute (Simon) so notice was deficient | Court: Notice insufficient; strict compliance required; summary judgment for OTA affirmed |
| Whether substantial compliance applies when notice is sent to a nondesignated official | Nyamatore: substantial compliance doctrine should apply because OTA knew of claim | OTA: substantial compliance inapplicable where statute designates a specific recipient | Court: Substantial compliance not available when notice was not filed with the statutorily designated official |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents OTA from asserting defective notice | Nyamatore: Simpson’s communications and settlement offers misled counsel into believing claim was received/properly filed | OTA: no affirmative misrepresentation about filing requirements; claimant had means to discover proper procedure | Court: Equitable estoppel not available against a governmental entity absent compelling circumstances; estoppel elements not met |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Nyamatore: factual issues exist regarding notice and estoppel | OTA: undisputed facts show failure to comply with statutory notice and no estoppel | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — no genuine material issue and OTA entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipley v. Department of Roads, 283 Neb. 832 (statutory sovereign-immunity waiver construed strictly)
- King v. State, 260 Neb. 14 (waivers of sovereign immunity strictly construed)
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (notice must be filed with statutorily designated recordkeeper)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40 (substantial compliance inapplicable when notice not filed with designated official)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (strict compliance with PSTCA notice requirement needed despite defendant’s knowledge)
- Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842 (de novo review for equitable estoppel in equity appeals)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533 (no estoppel where claimant received communications but no misrepresentation about filing requirements)
- Lowe v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 17 Neb. App. 419 (estoppel applied where claimant’s counsel was affirmatively misled about where to file)
- Capitol City Telephone v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 264 Neb. 515 (elements of equitable estoppel explained)
- Jill B. & Travis B. v. State, 297 Neb. 57 (reaffirming requirement of strict compliance for statutes waiving sovereign immunity)