Saylor v. State
944 N.W.2d 726
Neb.2020Background:
- James Saylor, a Nebraska Department of Correctional Services inmate, filed 16 presuit tort claims with the State Risk Manager between June 2016 and February 2017 using the Risk Manager’s "Tort & Miscellaneous Claim Form."
- Each form completed required fields, but in field No. 9 ("Total Amount of Claim") Saylor wrote "[t]o be proven" rather than a dollar amount.
- The Risk Manager acknowledged receipt, assigned claim numbers, did not request additional information, and ultimately denied the claims in June 2017.
- Saylor sued the State (and related parties) in district court on June 16, 2017; the State moved for dismissal/summary judgment arguing noncompliance with the STCA presuit filing manner because no dollar amount was provided.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State and dismissed Saylor’s complaint; Saylor appealed. A key factual/regulatory point: the State Claims Board regulations require a specific Board form and triplicate filing with the Board’s secretary, but the Risk Manager used a different form and electronic/mailed submission process.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the substantial compliance doctrine applies to STCA presuit content requirements | Saylor: substantial compliance applies (as under PSTCA) and excuses nonliteral answers on form | State: STCA requirements must be followed strictly; substantial compliance is incompatible with STCA | Court: Substantial compliance applies to content questions under STCA (limited to content, not timing or recipient) |
| Whether Saylor’s claim forms satisfied the presuit content requirement despite writing "to be proven" in "Total Amount of Claim" | Saylor: answer provided all information called for; general damages need not be stated in dollars; no prejudice to State | State: field No. 9 required a dollar amount; absence of amount means claim lacked required information | Court: Saylor substantially complied — "to be proven" plus narratives put State on notice of general damages; no prejudice shown |
| Whether strict compliance was possible and whether State waived objections by accepting the forms | Saylor: strict compliance was impossible because Risk Manager's form/process conflicted with Board rules; acceptance suggested waiver | State: acceptance did not waive right to raise formal compliance defect | Court: strict compliance was not possible due to regulatory mismatch; court did not reach waiver claim because it found substantial compliance on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Komar v. State, 299 Neb. 301 (Neb. 2018) (describes STCA presuit and final-disposition procedures as conditions precedent)
- Cole v. Isherwood, 264 Neb. 985 (Neb. 2002) (treats presuit procedures as procedural conditions precedent, not jurisdictional)
- Chicago Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 71, 227 Neb. 355 (Neb. 1987) (applies liberal/substantial compliance approach to PSTCA presuit content)
- West Omaha Inv. v. S.I.D. No. 48, 227 Neb. 785 (Neb. 1988) (holds dollar amount is not mandatory where claim otherwise notifies defendant of loss)
- City of Lincoln v. Pirner, 59 Neb. 634 (Neb. 1900) (early adoption of substantial compliance for presuit notice when description enables investigation)
- Jill B. & Travis B. v. State, 297 Neb. 57 (Neb. 2017) (reinforces strict construction for statutes waiving sovereign immunity, but court distinguishes presuit content rules from statutes in derogation of immunity)