Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.
Anyone making a claim against a government body in Washington must complete and serve a tort claim form prior to filing a lawsuit.
In a recent case the trial court dismissed a lawsuit because the claimant listed damages as “undetermined pending further investigation” and had failed to state each of his previous addresses as required.
The claimant appealed and the case was heard by both the Court of Appeals and eventually the Washington Supreme Court.[1]
A local government entity is liable for damages arising from its tortuous conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation. However, prospective plaintiffs must file a tort claim with the local government at least 60 days prior to filing a lawsuit. The purpose of this claim is “to allow government entities time to investigate, evaluate, and settle claims” before they are sued.[2]
The version of the tort claim statute in affect at the time required the claimant to state the “amount of damages claimed, together with a statement of the actual residence of the claimant at the time of presenting and filing the claim and for a period of six months immediately prior to the time the claim arose”.
The claimant stated on his tort claim form that the amount of damages was “undetermined pending further investigation and discovery” and, because he was once employed by the city he was suing, “wages and benefits as well known to the city since termination plus front pay, emotional damages, costs, fees and such other damage as determined.” Additionally, the single address he provided covered only two of the six months immediately preceding accrual of his claim.
The trial court dismissed his case for failure to comply with the tort claims statute.
The Court cited precedent noting that it had interpreted “substantial compliance” to require that the claimant make a “bona fide attempt to comply with the law” and that the notice filed “must actually accomplish its purpose.” Even when the notice is defective in some respects, we have held it is sufficient if it advances the purpose of the statute.[3]
The Court noted that “in some cases, the exact amount of damages may be uncertain at the time the notice is prepared”. While the exact amount is sometimes known, “in other cases, such precision is not possible. Because the purpose of providing a description of the damages claimed is to give the government general notice and the opportunity to investigate, negotiate, and possibly settle claims, and based on the statute’s liberal construction directive, a general description of damages sought fulfills the statute’s purpose”.
The Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the answers, though imperfect, substantially complied with the tort claim statute.
[1] Renner v. City of Marysville, 145 Wn. App. 443, 458, 187 P.3d 283 (2008); Renner v. City of Marysville, 165 Wn.2d 1027, 203 P.3d 382 (2009).
[2] Medina v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 147 Wn.2d 303, 310, 53 P.3d 993(2002).
[3] Brigham v. City of Seattle, 34 Wn.2d 786, 789, 210 P.2d 144 (1949).