 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vater v. County of Lancaster10/4/2005
(Not Designated for Permanent Publication)
Irwin, Sievers, and Cassel, Judges.
INTRODUCTION
Mary Ann Vater appeals the order of the district court for Lancaster County affirming the order of the county court for Lancaster County, which granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the County of Lancaster (Lancaster). The appeal focuses on whether Vater's tort claim was filed or should be treated as if filed with the proper official as required by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (the Act). Because we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Vater's failure to do so, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2001, Vater was involved in a motor vehicle collision which occurred when she swerved to avoid a vehicle driven by a Lancaster County deputy sheriff. On January 6, 2003, Vater filed a complaint against Lancaster in county court, seeking to recover damages incurred in the accident. She alleged that she had provided Lancaster with notice of her claim pursuant to the Act. In Lancaster's answer, Lancaster alleged that Vater's claims were barred because she had failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง 13-905 (Reissue 1997) of the Act. Section 13-905 provides, in pertinent part:
All tort claims under [the Act] shall be filed with the clerk, secretary, or other official whose duty it is to maintain the official records of the political subdivision, or the governing body of a political subdivision may provide that such claims may be filed with the duly constituted law department of such subdivision. It shall be the duty of the official with whom the claim is filed to present the claim to the governing body.
Lancaster moved for summary judgment, again alleging that Vater had failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Act. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court received affidavits, depositions, and correspondence, which we summarize.
At the time of the accident, Vater was insured by State Farm Insurance Companies (State Farm). In a letter dated January 8, 2002, a State Farm claims representative advised the Lancaster County sheriff that "your driver" was responsible for the accident and that State Farm expected reimbursement from the sheriff's office for Vater's damages. On January 14, Deputy County Attorney Douglas D. Cyr penned a reply to the State Farm representative:
The Lancaster County Sheriff has forwarded to me your letter dated January 8, 2002 relating to an accident that your insured was involved in on November 24, 2001. Please direct all future communication regarding this accident to my attention.
It is asserted in your letter that the information in your file indicates that our driver was responsible for this accident. Please forward any information that you have in your file which you believe supports that contention. . . . Your insured appears to have failed to maintain a proper lookout as well as driving too fast for the conditions then and there existing.
I look forward to any information that you can provide me relating to the issue of liability.
(Emphasis supplied.) A notation at the bottom of the letter reflects that Cyr sent copies of the letter to Terry Wagner, who was identified in later correspondence as "Sheriff"; "Sue Eckley, Risk Manager"; and Bill Jarrett, whom Cyr later identified in a deposition as the "chief deputy" sheriff.
In his deposition, Cyr stated that he asked State Farm to direct all future communication regarding the accident to Cyr because State Farm had communicated with the sheriff's office directly rather than with Cy
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|