Nyamatore v. Schuerman
25 Neb. Ct. App. 209
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 19, 2015, Eunice Nyamatore was injured in a bus accident involving Omaha Transit Authority (OTA).
- On July 9, 2015 (within one year), Nyamatore’s counsel sent a written notice of claim only to OTA’s legal and human resources director, Edith Simpson, not to OTA’s executive director who was the official recordkeeper.
- Simpson, who was not the statutory records officer, later corresponded with Nyamatore’s counsel about settlement (letters dated April 15, 2016 and May 13, 2016).
- Nyamatore filed suit May 5, 2016; OTA asserted as an affirmative defense that PSTCA notice requirements were not met and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for OTA; Nyamatore appealed, arguing (1) substantial compliance with the PSTCA notice requirement and (2) equitable estoppel based on OTA/Simpson’s settlement communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice to OTA complied with PSTCA §13-905 (filed with official recordkeeper) | Nyamatore: letter to Simpson substantially complied and put OTA on notice | OTA: letter was not filed with the official recordkeeper (executive director), so statutory notice not met | Court: Notice invalid; strict compliance required — summary judgment for OTA affirmed |
| Whether substantial compliance doctrine applies when notice is filed with a nondesignated official | Nyamatore: substantial compliance applies because OTA knew of claim and Simpson negotiated settlement | OTA: statute designates specific official; case law bars substantial compliance where wrong recipient was used | Court: Niemoller and McElwee control; substantial compliance not applicable when notice not filed with designated official |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents OTA from asserting the notice defect | Nyamatore: Simpson’s settlement communications led counsel to rely and delayed filing correctly | OTA: no misrepresentation about who was the recordkeeper; plaintiff had means to learn statutory procedure | Court: Estoppel not shown — elements not met; government estoppel applied only in compelling circumstances |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Nyamatore: disputed factual inferences preclude summary judgment | OTA: undisputed facts show failure to comply with statutory filing requirement | Court: No genuine issue of material fact on notice; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (2003) (notice must be filed with official designated to maintain records; filing with nondesignated official insufficient)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40 (2008) (substantial compliance not available when claimant files with nondesignated recipient)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (2015) (strict adherence to PSTCA filing requirements; filing must be with person designated by statute or bylaws)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533 (1989) (settlement communications alone do not estop a municipality from asserting PSTCA notice defects)