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).
- Counsel for Nyamatore sent a written notice of claim dated July 9, 2015 to OTA’s legal and human resources director, Edith Simpson; the executive director (Curt Simon) was the official statutorily designated recordkeeper.
- Simpson responded with settlement communications in April and May 2016; Nyamatore filed suit May 5, 2016 (about 11 months after the accident).
- OTA raised as an affirmative defense that Nyamatore failed to comply with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) notice requirements (§ 13-905/13-919), because the claim was not filed with the official charged with maintaining OTA’s records.
- The district court granted OTA’s summary judgment motion; Nyamatore appealed, arguing substantial compliance with PSTCA notice and equitable estoppel based on Simpson’s settlement communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice to OTA complied with PSTCA (§ 13-905/13-919) | Nyamatore: letter to Simpson substantially complied and put OTA on notice | OTA: PSTCA requires filing with the official recordkeeper (executive director); notice to Simpson insufficient | Court: Notice was insufficient; strict statutory recipient requirement controls; summary judgment for OTA affirmed |
| Whether substantial compliance can cure filing with wrong official | Nyamatore: substantial compliance doctrine should apply | OTA: substantial compliance inapplicable when claim not filed with designated official | Court: Substantial compliance not available when notice not filed with statutorily designated recipient (Niemoller/McElwee line) |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents PSTCA forfeiture | Nyamatore: Simpson’s settlement offers and communications led counsel to rely and not re-file properly | OTA: No affirmative misrepresentation; claimant had means and duty to follow statutory filing procedure | Court: Equitable estoppel inapplicable; no compelling circumstances or misrepresentation to estop a governmental entity |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Nyamatore: factual disputes exist about OTA’s actual knowledge and Simpson’s role | OTA: undisputed facts show Simon was recordkeeper and no evidence Simpson was de facto recordkeeper or misled claimant | Court: Viewed favorably to Nyamatore, facts still show no compliance or estoppel; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (2003) (notice must be filed with official charged with maintaining political subdivision’s records)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40 (2008) (substantial compliance does not apply when claim not filed with designated official)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (2015) (strict adherence to statutory filing recipient; absence of de facto recordkeeper or misrepresentation defeats compliance)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533 (1989) (settlement communications alone do not estop municipality absent misrepresentation or affirmative assurance regarding statutory filing)
- Lowe v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 17 Neb. App. 419 (2009) (equitable estoppel applied where claimant’s counsel was affirmatively misdirected and later received a letter that could reasonably be read as acknowledging proper filing)
- Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842 (2016) (equitable estoppel against government requires compelling circumstances and is applied cautiously)