In Cavey v. Tualla, published September 24, 2021, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit against a public entity after demurrer. In May 2017, the plaintiff was a passenger hit by a truck driven by the defendant employee of a school district and owned by the district. After the accident, the plaintiff received treatment from a chiropractor, who had her sign several forms. Among them was a one-page "CLAIM FOR DAMAGES." The plaintiff allegedly believed this was a lien, not a governmental claim. The only address listed in the claim was the plaintiff's post office box. In June 2017, the chiropractor presented the claim to the district by fax. (This method of presentation, the court noted, did not comply with the Government Claims Act, but the district waived this defect by not responding with a Notice of Insufficiency.) Later in June 2017, the plaintiff retained counsel. The counsel notified the adjuster for the district that they were representing the plaintiff. In July 2017, the adjuster signed a notice of rejection of the claim the chiropractor presented. The adjuster mailed the rejection notice to the plaintiff's counsel, and not to the plaintiff's post office box. The rejection notice did not include a copy of the claim rejected. The firm assumed the rejection notice related to the claim of other claimants involved in the accident. In September 2017, the counsel presented a claim (containing more detail than the chiropractor's claim) to the district on behalf of the plaintiff. The district did not respond to the claim. The claim was deemed rejected by operation of law in November 2017. In April 2018, the counsel filed a complaint on behalf of the plaintiff. The complaint was thus filed less than five months after the rejection by operation of law, and 11 months after the accident. The district obtained a demurrer on the ground that the June 2017 claim for damages was signed by and presented on behalf of the plaintiff, and that plaintiff had failed to file suit within six months of the July 2017 rejection of that claim.
The appellate court concluded that the chiropractor's claim was a nullity, and that the rejection of that claim did not trigger Government Code section 945.6(a)(1)'s six months statute of limitations. The court analyzed the language in Government Code sections 910 and 910.2 that a claim may be presented and signed either by the claimant or by a person acting on the claimant's behalf. After considering case law dealing with unauthorized claims, and the policies behind the claims requirement, the court found an ambiguity in the statutory language as to what "on the claimant's behalf" meant. The court further concluded that the claimant's intent should control whether a claim was presented on her behalf. A claim is presented on a claimant's behalf if the claimant knowingly and intentionally authorized the third person to present it; or alternatively if the claimant knowingly and intentionally ratified the claim after it was presented to the public entity. An unauthorized, unratified claim is treated as a nullity, and the entity's notice of rejection of the unauthorized, unratified claim does not trigger the six-month statute of limitations. The possibility that public entities might be harmed by this statutory interpretation can be addressed by permitting public entities to assert equitable estoppel if they relied on an unauthorized claim to their injury, provided the other elements of estoppel are satisfied. Because an unauthorized and unratified claim is a nullity, the claimant need not repudiate such a claim. Applying this interpretation to the facts, the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, assumed true on demurrer, indicate that the plaintiff neither knowingly and intentionally authorized the chiropractor to present the claim on her behalf, nor ratified the claim after presentation. Further, while repudiation is not necessary, the claimant's presentation of an authorized claim acts as a repudiation of the unauthorized claim, unless the entity shows that undue prejudice. Undue prejudice is detriment to the entity's ability to defend the case on the merits or fulfill the legislative purposes of the claim statute (ability to perform an adequate pre-litigation investigation and decide whether to settle; take potential liability into account for budgeting; and address a dangerous situation to avoid further injury). Loss of a statute of limitations defense is not undue prejudice.
Alternatively, the court deemed the notice of rejection of the chiropractor's claim defective, because it was sent to legal counsel for the claimant rather than the only address in the claim: The claimant's post office box address. The plain language of Government Code section 915.4 is that the notice must be sent to the address of the claimant as set forth in the claim, or the address the claim sets forth as the address to which notices are to be sent.
Leave a Reply