Tort Claims Act: Actions: Time. Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 81-8, 227 (Reissue 2014) sets out a 2-year
limitations period that governs not just the time for
submitting claims to the Risk Manager, but also the time for
beginning suit under the State Tort Claims Act.
___:___: ___. Before suit can be filed under the State Tort
Claims Act, a claimant must submit the claim in writing to
the Risk Manager within 2 years after the claim accrued.
___: ___. Generally speaking, a claimant cannot file suit
under the State Tort Claims Act until the Risk Manager or
State Claims Board makes a final disposition of the claim,
but if no final disposition of a claim has been made after 6
months, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the claim and
Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An
appellate court will affirm a lower court's grant of
summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as
to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
___. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court
views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party
against whom the judgment was granted and gives that party
the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory
interpretation presents a question of law, for which an
appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent
conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court
___:___ . Statutory language is to be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to
interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words
which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
Neb. 780] 8. Statutes. It
is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into
a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is
it within the province of a court to read anything plain,
direct, or unambiguous out of a statute.
.A court must attempt to give effect to all parts of a
statute, and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, or
sentence will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless.
Statutes: Immunity. Statutes authorizing
suits against the State are to be strictly construed because
such statutes are in derogation of the State's sovereign
Tort Claims Act: Actions: Time: Legislature.
The Legislature expressly states in Neb. Rev. Stat. §
81-8, 227(5) (Reissue 2014) that § 81-8, 227 and Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 25-213 (Reissue 2016) "shall
constitute the only statutes of limitations applicable to the
State Tort Claims Act." Because Neb. Rev. Stat. §
25-201.02 (Reissue 2016) is not one of the applicable
statutes listed in § 81-8, 227(5), it cannot be applied
to extend the time period for bringing an action under the
State Tort Claims Act.
from the District Court for Lancaster County: Robert R. Otte,
Michael J. Wilson, of Schaefer Shapiro, L.L.R, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Scott R. Straus, and,
on brief, David A. Lopez, Deputy Solicitor General, for
appellees State of Nebraska and Nebraska Department of
L. Wiedrich, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson &
Oldfather, L.L.R, for appellee Correct Care Solutions, L.L.C.
Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.
central issue in this appeal is whether the savings clause of
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 (Reissue 2016) applies to an
action under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA). We conclude it
does not. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
court dismissing this STCA action as time barred.
Neb. 781] BACKGROUND
appeal requires us to consider the timeliness of a tort
action filed in 2017 by James Saylor against the State of
Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
(DCS), and 10 others alleged to be employed by DCS. Tort
claims against the State and its agents and employees are
governed by the STCA. Here, no one disputes that the tort claims
alleged in Saylor's 2017 action are governed by the STCA;
instead, the dispute is whether his 2017 action was timely
commenced under the STCA.
case has a complicated factual and procedural history. In
this opinion, we address only that which bears directly on
resolving the central question of whether this action is time
barred under the STCA. We begin by setting out the statutes
that govern timeliness under the STCA.
81-8, 227 sets out a 2-year limitations period that governs
not just the time for submitting claims to the Risk Manager,
but also the time for beginning suit under the STCA. Pursuant
to § 81-8, 227(1), before suit can be filed under the
STCA, a claimant must submit the claim in writing to the Risk
Manager within 2 years after the claim accrued. Generally
speaking, a claimant cannot file suit under the STCA until
the Risk Manager or State Claims Board makes a final
disposition of the claim, but if no ...