 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ferrer v. Jackson County Board of Supervisors4/29/1999
to file suit against the County unless a settlement is reached in the next ten days. A carbon copy was sent to Wayne Howard. "7. July 19, 1996 Letter from Board attorney, Peggy Mullins to Jerry L. Hutcherson acknowledging receipt of his July 3rd letter and informing him that the Insurance Committee is reviewing Ferrer's claim in order to arrive at a settlement figure. "8. July 30, 1996 Letter from Mullins to Hutcherson proposing a settlement offer of $15,404.72. "9. August 9, 1996 Letter from Hutcherson to Mullins rejecting the Board's settlement offer because it did not account for pain and suffering. Hutcherson made a counteroffer of $48,750.00. "10. August 15, 1996 Letter from Mullins to Hutcherson withdrawing the $15,404.72 settlement offer and any other offers which were transmitted."
. As evidenced by the above summary, the communication between Ferrer, the Board and its agents was prolonged, continuous and extensive. As a result of these Discussions, information regarding Ferrer's claim was directed to and/or received by the following people associated with Jackson County: (1) The Board of Supervisors; (2) Peggy Mullins, the Board's attorney; (3) Kevin Bradley, the Board's special counsel; (4) the Jackson County Insurance Committee; and (5) Wayne Howard, the Jackson County Risk Manager.
. All of the parties involved in the settlement Discussions were directly associated with Jackson County and/or the Board of Supervisors. The information to be supplied by a notice of claim under § 11-46-11 was furnished to the county. Thus, this Court holds that Ferrer's communication with the Board and its agents substantially complied with the notice requirement in § 11-46-11.
IV.
. Ferrer alternatively argues that the Board waived the right to raise the issue of lack of notice or is estopped from raising the issue. While the concepts of waiver and estoppel are not synonymous, they both involve an analysis of the Board's actions regarding Ferrer's claim. Accordingly, these issues will be addressed in unison.
. Ferrer contends that the Board waived any deficiency in the notice received when it paid him several thousand dollars in property damage claims and made a settlement offer of nearly $15,000. Ferrer says that the Board, by its acts, caused him to believe that the notice requirement was waived. We agree.
. The extensive communication listed above between Ferrer and the Board put the Board on notice of Ferrer's claim. Further, the actions taken by the Board in paying Ferrer's property damage claims and proposing a settlement offer served to estop the Board from asserting the notice requirement.
. Reason demands that the Board's participation in such an extensive dialogue with Ferrer over the course of nearly (2) years estops the Board from asserting any right to notice that once existed. The Board was attempting to have its cake and eat it too, by engaging in settlement Discussions with Ferrer, then retreating to the protection of the Tort Claims Act once the negotiations went awry.
. The Board's payment of Ferrer's property damage claim and its settlement offer estops the Board from raising the notice requirement under § 11-46-11. Therefore, any right of the Board to raise the issue of notice was surrendered and can no longer serve as a ground for dismissing Ferrer's case. See Carr, 1999 WL 62772, at *5 13.
V.
. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., McRA
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.
|
|