The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a ruling in a Chubb Ltd. unit’s favor over the issue of whether it had appropriately notified the city of Omaha of a subrogation claim involving a bus accident.

Chubb unit Great Northern Insurance Co., acting on behalf of its policyholder, the Omaha Performing Arts Society, filed a subrogation action against Omaha’s transit authority, which conducts business as Metro Area Transit, over $340,000 in estimated damages in connection with a 2016 motor vehicle accident involving a city bus, according to Friday’s ruling by the state high court in Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Transit Authority of City of Omaha.

After Great Northern paid for the damages under its policy, it informed Metro about the subrogation claim in a letter to Metro’s director of legal/human resources, who forwarded it to Metro’s outside counsel.

Great Northern filed suit against Metro for the subrogation claim in May 2018.  Metro challenged the insurer’s compliance with Nebraska’s Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, stating the notice had not been sent to the proper official, and even if it was properly sent, it was a notice of potential future claim rather than the current filing of a tort claim. 

Great Northern argued it had “substantially complied” with the statute and satisfied the statute’s purpose, which was to give the political subdivision timely notice of the claim so it could investigate and appropriately respond.

It was undisputed that the executive director is the only Metro official whose duty it is to maintain official records, and that he had not signed or received Great Northern’s letter.

The lower court ruled in Chubb’s favor and was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court. Metro has failed to demonstrate “it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the letter was not a ‘claim’” under the state statute, the Supreme Court said in its ruling.

“Additionally, we find that even if assuming there were such error, it is not of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process,” it said.

 Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.