Nyamatore v. Schuerman
25 Neb. Ct. App. 209
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 19, 2015, Eunice Nyamatore was injured in a bus accident operated by Omaha Transit Authority (OTA).
- Nyamatore’s counsel mailed a written notice of claim dated July 9, 2015 to Edith A. Simpson, OTA’s legal and human resources director; OTA’s executive director (Curt Simon) was the official statutorily charged with maintaining OTA’s records.
- Simpson responded with settlement correspondence (April 15, 2016 and May 13, 2016). Nyamatore sued in district court on May 5, 2016 (about 11 months after the accident).
- OTA asserted as an affirmative defense that Nyamatore failed to comply with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) notice requirement and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for OTA; Nyamatore appealed arguing (1) substantial compliance with PSTCA notice and (2) equitable estoppel based on OTA’s (Simpson’s) settlement communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nyamatore’s letter satisfied PSTCA notice (§13‑905/§13‑919) | Nyamatore: letter to Simpson put OTA on notice; substantial compliance because OTA acted on the claim | OTA: letter was not filed with the official statutorily designated recordkeeper (executive director); §13‑905 requires filing with that official | Court: Notice invalid — statute requires filing with designated official; substantial‑compliance doctrine inapplicable when sent to nondesignated person |
| Whether Simpson’s settlement communications estoppelized OTA from asserting defective notice | Nyamatore: Simpson’s settlement offers induced reliance and signaled OTA’s receipt of claim | OTA: no misrepresentation as to who must receive statutory notice; claimant had means to learn filing requirements | Court: Equitable estoppel inapplicable — no affirmative misrepresentation, claimant had means to learn statute, estoppel rarely applied to government |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given undisputed facts | Nyamatore: factual disputes (e.g., OTA’s knowledge) preclude summary judgment | OTA: undisputed that only executive director was recordkeeper and Simpson was not de facto recordkeeper | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — no genuine issue on statutory recipient and no evidence Simpson was de facto recordkeeper |
| Whether a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity should be construed broadly | Nyamatore: (implicit) allow waiver when defendant had actual knowledge | OTA: waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of sovereign | Court: Statutory waiver strictly construed; strict compliance required absent legislative change |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317 (2003) (notice must be filed with the official designated recordkeeper)
- Niemoller v. City of Papillion, 276 Neb. 40 (2008) (substantial‑compliance analysis does not apply when notice is not filed with designated recipient)
- Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879 (2015) (filing with an official who does not have statutory duty to maintain records does not satisfy PSTCA)
- Steckelberg v. Nebraska State Patrol, 294 Neb. 842 (2016) (equitable estoppel against government applied only in compelling circumstances; appellate review de novo for equitable estoppel)
- Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533 (1989) (government not estopped where claimant received communications but was not misinformed about statutory filing requirements)
- Lowe v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 17 Neb. App. 419 (2009) (estoppel may apply where claimant was given incorrect filing instructions and later received acknowledgement that reasonably implied proper filing)