Nyamatore v. Schuerman
25 Neb. Ct. App. 209
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 19, 2015, Eunice Nyamatore was injured as a passenger on an Omaha Transit Authority (OTA) bus and, through counsel, sent a written notice of claim dated July 9, 2015 to OTA’s legal and human resources director, Edith Simpson.
- The PSTCA requires claims to be filed with the official whose duty is to maintain the political subdivision’s official records (or with a designated law department); OTA’s executive director, Curt Simon, was the only official with that duty.
- Simpson was not the official recordkeeper, nor was there evidence she ever served as clerk/secretary or misrepresented that role.
- Simpson later corresponded with Nyamatore’s counsel about settlement (letters dated April 15, 2016 and May 13, 2016).
- Nyamatore filed suit on May 5, 2016 (approximately 11 months after the accident). OTA asserted as an affirmative defense that the PSTCA notice requirement was not satisfied and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for OTA; Nyamatore appealed, arguing substantial compliance with PSTCA notice and that equitable estoppel should apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff complied with PSTCA notice requirement (§ 13-905/13-919) | Nyamatore: sent timely written notice to OTA (Simpson), which put OTA on notice; substantial compliance applies. | OTA: notice must be filed with the official statutorily charged with maintaining official records (executive director); Simpson was not the designated recipient, so notice fails. | Court: Notice inadequate. Filing with non-designated official is insufficient; substantial compliance inapplicable when wrong recipient. |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars OTA from asserting noncompliance with PSTCA notice | Nyamatore: OTA/Simpson’s settlement correspondence induced reliance, so estoppel should prevent OTA from asserting the notice defect. | OTA: No affirmative misrepresentation about filing procedure; plaintiff had means to learn filing rules; estoppel against government disfavored and requires compelling circumstances. | Court: Estoppel does not apply. No evidence of affirmative misrepresentation or that plaintiff lacked means to learn proper filing; doctrine applied cautiously against government. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (establishes that claims must be filed with the official charged with maintaining records; notice to other officials is ineffective)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40 (substantial-compliance analysis does not apply when claim is not filed with the statutorily designated recipient)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (strict compliance required where official recordkeeper is designated; knowledge by other officers does not satisfy statute absent misrepresentation)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533 (settlement discussions with municipal representatives do not alone estop municipality from enforcing PSTCA filing requirements)
- Lowe v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 17 Neb. App. 419 (equitable estoppel may apply where claimant was actively misled about the proper filing recipient)