Opinion ID: 1988115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: bessie's claim

Text: Although the above analysis applies equally to Bessie's claim insofar as her claim was barred by the 2-year statute of limitations, her claim is different from Philip's in that she never filed a notice of claim with the City as required by § 13-919(1). Bessie argues that the City should be estopped from relying on the notice requirement based on the same conduct analyzed above with regard to the statute of limitations. However, one of the elements that must be shown in order to establish equitable estoppel is reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped. Bohl v. Buffalo Cty., supra . Bessie stated in her affidavit that because she did not consult with an attorney and the City did not indicate otherwise she relied on the actual notices the City had already received of the claims, including (1) the taped interview on June 11, 1992, which was transcribed; (2) the Letter of Understanding wherein the City of Lincoln expressly acknowledged the accident and agreed to reserve the rights of both herself and her husband to claim damages in the future; (3) her husband's written notice of May 12, 1993; (4) together with the fact that she and her husband were conducting ongoing settlement negotiations with the City of Lincoln. (Emphasis supplied.) Bessie does not allege that she failed to comply with the notice requirements in reliance on the City's conduct, but, rather, that she relied on the actual notice that she felt had been given to the City. She has therefore failed to establish the elements of equitable estoppel as regards her failure to comply with the claim requirements of the Act. Bessie also argues that her signature on the letter of understanding constitutes substantial compliance with the notice requirements of § 13-919(1). We have held that with regard to a claim's content, substantial compliance with the statutory provisions supplies the requisite and sufficient notice to a political subdivision. Chicago Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 71, 227 Neb. 355, 417 N.W.2d 757 (1988). However, we made clear in Willis v. City of Lincoln, 232 Neb. 533, 441 N.W.2d 846 (1989), that in order for a written notice to substantially comply with the requirements of § 13-919(1), such written notice must be filed with an individual or office designated in the Act as the authorized recipient of claims. The City's risk management office, for whom Imig worked and with whom the agreement in the letter of understanding was reached, is not an authorized recipient of claims under § 13-905, and thus even if the content of the letter gives notice of Bessie's claim, she did not give it to the proper individual or office. For these reasons, we hold that the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the City and Wells on Bessie's claim was correct and is hereby affirmed.