Stonacek v. City of Lincoln

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court considered consolidated negligence actions brought by homeowners whose homes flooded in the Cardwell Woods development near Lincoln, Nebraska. The court held that the flood plain management statutes and regulations did not create a private tort duty, and that the homeowners' claim concerning the city's failure to provide flood-elevation information was barred by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act's misrepresentation exception. The court reversed the district court's decisions and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaints.

Holdings

1. The permit exception barred claims based on issuing or failing to require permits or permit-related approvals, but it did not automatically bar the separate claims alleging failure to provide flood information or failure to comply with flood-plain-management requirements.
2. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 31-1019 and 258 Neb. Admin. Code, chapter 1, did not create a tort duty owed by the city to the homeowners or a private civil cause of action for the alleged failure to maintain or provide accurate flood-plain information.
3. The homeowners' claim that the city failed to advise them of accurate flood-elevation information was a claim based on misrepresentation and was barred by the misrepresentation exception to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act.
4. The district court abused its discretion by denying the city's consolidated motion for new trial because all five negligence claims should have been dismissed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the dismissal of two permit-based negligence claims under the permit exception to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act required dismissal of all five negligence claims.
2. Whether Nebraska's flood-plain-management statutes and Department of Natural Resources regulations created a tort duty and private cause of action in favor of the homeowners.
3. Whether the homeowners' claim that the city failed to advise them of accurate flood-elevation information was a misrepresentation claim barred by the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the city's consolidated motion for new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded