Legal Opinion · Dissent

Thomas v. Omega Re-Bar, Inc.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 1990No. 89-052Published

1DissentFahrnbruch, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the *455compensation court is without jurisdiction to determine insurance coverage disputes between employers and their workers’ compensation insurance carriers.

While it is true that the manner in which the compensation court operates is to be found in the legislation itself, Shada v. Whitney, 172 Neb. 220, 109 N.W.2d 167 (1961); Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Kennard, 162 Neb. 220, 75 N.W.2d 553 (1956), I disagree with the majority’s narrow focus that the statutes must expressly provide the compensation court with subject matter jurisdiction…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Travelers Insurance v. Hawaii Roofing, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Peek v. Ayers Auto SupplyNebraska Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Collins v. Casualty Reciprocal ExchangeNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
  4. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NY v. KennardNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. TuggleCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API