 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greene v. Utah Transit Authority12/18/2001
Greene appeals from the trial court's dismissal.
ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
Ms. Greene raises two arguments in support of her contention that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint: (1) that she substantially complied with the Immunity Act, and/or (2) that UTA should be estopped from raising the Immunity Act as a defense due to the actions of its claims adjuster.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also, e.g., Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake County Comm'n, 2001 UT 55, 7, 28 P.3d 686. We give a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment no deference and review it for correctness. Kearns-Tribune Corp., 2001 UT 55 at 7, 28 P.3d 686.
ANALYSIS
I. UTAH GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT
The Utah Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-30-1 to -34 (Supp. 2001), establishes the parameters under which parties may bring suit against governmental entities for injuries. Pursuant to the Immunity Act, as a prerequisite to filing suit, a party must file a written notice of claim with the governmental entity. § 63-30-11(2). At issue in this case is compliance with the delivery requirements of the Immunity Act, which state that "the notice of claim shall be . . . directed and delivered to . . . the president or secretary of the board, when the claim is against a special district." § 63-30-11(3)(b)(ii)(D).
A. Immunity Act Requires Strict Compliance
Utah law mandates strict compliance with the requirements of the Immunity Act. See, e.g., Rushton v. Salt Lake County, 1999 UT 36, 19, 977 P.2d 1201. Ms. Greene cites two Utah Court of Appeals cases in an attempt to show that Utah courts have recognized exceptions to this strict compliance rule. These cases, however, arose under previous versions of the Immunity Act and are inapplicable here.
The Immunity Act requires that a Notice, containing specified information, be delivered to specified persons within one year after the claim arises. §§ 63-30-11 to -13 (Supp. 2001). The pre-1998 Immunity Act required, among other things, that a Notice be "directed and delivered to the responsible governmental entity," defined as the "agency concerned" or the "governing body of the political subdivision," depending on the nature of the claim. §§ 63-30-11, -12, -13 (1997). In 1998 the Utah Legislature amended the Immunity Act, clarifying exactly to whom Notices must be directed and delivered. See 1998 Utah Laws ch. 164, § 1. Instead of using such general terms, the amended Immunity Act explicitly lists the individuals to whom the notice must be directed and delivered depending on the type of governmental entity involved. See § 63-30-11(3)(b)(ii)(Supp. 2001). Because UTA is a special district, the Immunity Act requires that UTA's president or secretary of the board receive the Notice. § 63-30-11(3)(b)(ii)(D)(Supp. 2001).
With the 1998 amendment, the legislature has left little open to interpretation and has resolved any potential ambiguities as to whom the Notice must be delivered. This move to clarify the delivery requirements of the Immunity Act reinforces the rule of strict compliance with the statute. Where, as here, the statute is clear, readily available, and easily accessible by counsel, there is no reason to require anything less than strict compliance.
Actual notice of a claim by a governmental entity does not excuse a claimant's strict compliance with the requirements of the Immunity Act. Rushton, 1999 UT 36 at 19, 977
Page 1 2 3 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|