 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrer v. Jackson County Board of Supervisors4/29/1999
.
. The Board initially paid Ferrer approximately $10,000 for property damages and rental car expenses. Additionally, after receiving a copy of Ferrer's medical files, Jackson County's Insurance Committee approved a settlement offer of $15,404. Ferrer rejected this offer and made a counteroffer of $48,750. The Insurance Committee refused Ferrer's counteroffer and withdrew any and all prior settlement offers which it had communicated.
. After negotiations between the parties dissolved, Ferrer filed his lawsuit on November 1, 1996. The Board filed its answer and affirmative defenses on November 19, 1996. On April 10, 1997, the Board filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Ferrer had failed to provide the Board with ninety (90) days notice before filing his suit as required by § 11-46-11. Ferrer contended that although he did not strictly follow the notice requirement contained in § 11-46-11, the Board had complete and actual notice of his claim due to the protracted settlement negotiations in which the two (2) parties had engaged. A hearing on the matter was held June 6,1997. During the fifty-seven (57) intervening days between the Board's filing and the hearing, Ferrer did not file a response to the Board's motion, nor did he propound any additional discovery or request any depositions.
. On August 12, 1997, the Circuit Court of Jackson County entered an order granting the Board's motion and holding that Ferrer's failure to provide the Board with ninety (90) days notice prior to filing his suit, as prescribed in § 11-46-11, was a basis for summary judgment. Aggrieved, Ferrer appeals to this Court.
III.
. While this Court has previously applied a standard of strict compliance in City of Jackson v. Lumpkin, 697 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 1997), and Carpenter v. Dawson, 701 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 1997), the Court began to relax this standard to one of substantial compliance in Reaves v. Randall, No. 97-CA-00982-SCT, 1998 WL 909578 (Miss. Dec. 31, 1998). The Court has since embraced the substantial compliance rule fully, overruling both Lumpkin and Carpenter to the extent that they required strict compliance in Carr v. Town of Shubuta, No. 96-CT-01266-SCT, 1999 WL 62772 (Miss. Feb. 11, 1999). In Carr, we stressed that the determination of substantial compliance is a legal as well as fact sensitive inquiry which must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. . In the present case, a summary of the communication between Ferrer and the Board is instructive in this regard:
"1. December 20, 1995: Letter from the Board's special counsel, Kevin Bradley, to Ferrer making a property settlement offer of $8,660.43 and enclosing a release of property damage claims. "2. December 21, 1995: Ferrer signs and returns the property damage release form; unclear to whom it was returned although Bradley's letter instructs him that this form and the rental car costs claims forms should be returned to "us." "3. December 21, 1995: Ferrer signs and returns a partial release for rental car costs claims in consideration of $416.10. "4. February 13, 1996: Ferrer signs and returns a final release for rental cars costs claims in consideration of $1232.98. "5. May 23, 1996: Letter from Ferrer addressed to the Jackson County Board of Supervisors enclosing his medical files and informing them that he had temporarily released his attorney in hopes of reaching a settlement. A carbon copy was sent to Ferrer's attorney Jerry L. Hutcherson. There is a handwritten note at the bottom of the letter indicating that the letter was given to the County's risk manager, Wayne Howard. "6. July 3, 1996: Letter from Jerry L. Hutcherson to Board attorney Peggy Mullins informing her that he plans
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|