1. Statute of limitations
2. Cause of action
1. Statute of limitations
An amended tort claim was time barred where the initial tort claim was timely filed but was not filed with the individual statutorily designated to receive tort claims and the amended tort claim was filed with the proper individual but was not filed within 1 year after the claim accrued. Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp., 289 Neb. 879, 857 N.W.2d 789 (2015).
Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the filing of a workers' compensation claim does not toll the limitation period set forth in this subsection. For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a cause of action accrues, thereby starting the period of limitations, when a potential plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should discover, the political subdivision's negligence. Polinski v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 251 Neb. 14, 554 N.W.2d 636 (1996).
Under subsection (1) of this section, the filing or presentment provision bars a plaintiff's action and precludes a remedy only if the claim is not filed or presented within the statutorily specified time. Millman v. County of Butler, 235 Neb. 915, 458 N.W.2d 207 (1990).
Subject to the exception described in section 25-213, the statute of limitations on filing a claim or suit for a political subdivision's tortious conduct is exclusively prescribed by this section. Chicago Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 71, 227 Neb. 355, 417 N.W.2d 757 (1988).
Subsection (3) of this section of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, permitting 6-month extensions brought "under any other applicable law of the state" against a political subdivision after it is determined that a claim is not permitted under the act, does not extend the time for filing a claim under the act against a different or additional political subdivision after one political subdivision denies the claim. Mace-Main v. City of Omaha, 17 Neb. App. 857, 773 N.W.2d 152
The discovery rule is applicable to the statute of limitations provisions applicable to prefiling notice requirements under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. Mace-Main v. City of Omaha, 17 Neb. App. 857, 773 N.W.2d 152 (2009).
2. Cause of action
For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a cause of action accrues, and the period of limitations begins to run, when a potential plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should discover, the political subdivision's negligent act or omission. Hutmacher v. City of Mead, 230 Neb. 78, 430 N.W.2d 276 (1988).
A cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the aggrieved party has the right to institute and maintain suit, even though such plaintiff may be ignorant of the existence of the cause of action. Ward v. City of Alliance, 227 Neb. 306, 417 N.W.2d 327 (1988).
A cause of action accrues, thereby starting the period of limitations, when a potential plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should discover, the political subdivision's negligence. Gard v. City of Omaha, 18 Neb. App. 504, 786 N.W.2d 688 (2010).
For purposes of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, the relevant question is when the cause of action accrued, not when the last injury occurred. Gard v. City of Omaha, 18 Neb. App. 504, 786 N.W.2d 688 (2010).
The primary purpose of notice provisions in connection with actions against political subdivisions is to afford municipal authorities prompt notice of the accident and injury in order that an investigation may be made while the occurrence is still fresh and the municipal authorities are in a position to intelligently consider the claim and to allow it if deemed just or, in the alternative, to adequately protect and defend the public interest. Keller v. Tavarone, 265 Neb. 236, 655 N.W.2d 899 (2003).
The notice of claim requirements of the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act is a condition precedent to the institution of suit against a political subdivision. The failure to allege in the petition that the condition precedent had been met is a fatal defect. Utsumi v. City of Grand Island, 221 Neb. 783, 381 N.W.2d 102 (1986).
The evident purpose of the 6-month extension of the filing deadline set forth in subsection (2) of this section is to provide claimants who filed timely claims, but filed those claims with the wrong tribunal or pursuant to the wrong statute, enough time to present their claims to the proper political subdivision. This requires, however, that those claimants still act promptly in order to satisfy the public purpose reflected in the notice requirements. A claim "made or filed under any other law of this state," within the meaning of subsection (2) of this section, must still be filed within the 1-year time limit imposed by the appropriate notice provision of either subsection (1) of this section or subsection (1) of section 13-920. Keller v. Tavarone, 265 Neb. 236, 655 N.W.2d 899 (2003).
The operation of the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act, section 44-2840, does not excuse a plaintiff from compliance with the requirement under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act that the claim be presented to the political subdivision prior to filing suit. Keller v. Tavarone, 262 Neb. 2, 628 N.W.2d 222 (2001).
In order for the extended period of limitations section of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act to apply, one of two positive acts must occur: the governmental subdivision must act on the claim, or the claimant must withdraw the claim. Absent the occurrence of either one of those affirmative steps, the statute of limitations runs at the end of two years from and after the time the claim accrued, and the action is barred. Ragland v. Norris P.P. Dist., 208 Neb. 492, 304 N.W.2d 55 (1981).
Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act including one-year notice of claim requirements and two-year limitation for bringing action held constitutional. Campbell v. City of Lincoln, 195 Neb. 703, 240 N.W.2d 339 (1976).
Because compliance with statutory time limits such as that set forth in this section can be determined with precision, the doctrine of substantial compliance generally has no application. Gard v. City of Omaha, 18 Neb. App. 504, 786 N.W.2d 688 (2010).
A negligence lawsuit brought against an employee of a political subdivision is not a "tort claim" against a "political subdivision" and is not controlled by the 2-year provision of subsection (1) of this section as applied via subsection (5). Gatewood v. Powell, 1 Neb. App. 749, 511 N.W.2d 159 (1993).
Claim for indemnification and contribution from political subdivision of state does not have to be filed pursuant to the Nebraska Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, and its one-year statute of limitations does not apply. Waldinger Co. v. P & Z Co., Inc., 414 F.Supp. 59 (D. Neb. 1976).