Tort Claims Notice Must Be in Writing

Training for: Legal Notes

Under the Maine Tort Claims Act or MTCA (14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118), governmental entities, including municipalities, must be notified in writing by a claimant within 180 days after the claim arises (see 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107). This is a legal prerequisite to filing suit.

The notice must specify all the particulars of the injury or damage, the amount of money sought, and contact information, among other things. The purpose is to give the government an opportunity to investigate and evaluate the claim and, if appropriate, to settle it without litigation.

In the past the Maine Supreme Court has granted a “substantial compliance’ exception to this notice requirement, but only when written notice was timely filed but failed to furnish all the information required. Never, though, has the Court decided whether oral notice could constitute substantial compliance – until recently.

In Deschenes v. City of Sanford (2016 ME 56), the plaintiff fell during a visit to city hall. Just two days shy of the 180-day deadline, and for the first time since his accident, he spoke with a city official and handed him some notes but provided no other information until written notice was filed by his attorney 17 days after the deadline had passed. Based on this and the law’s plain language, and also given the crucial purpose of the notice requirement, the Court held that “oral notice can never constitute substantial compliance.”

Although this decision will be of interest primarily to personal injury and government defense attorneys, it also underscores the Law Court’s historically strict reading of the MTCA in favor of governmental immunity. (By R.P.F.)

Under the Maine Tort Claims Act or MTCA (14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118), governmental entities, including municipalities, must be notified in writing by a claimant within 180 days after the claim arises (see 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107). This is a legal prerequisite to filing suit.

The notice must specify all the particulars of the injury or damage, the amount of money sought, and contact information, among other things. The purpose is to give the government an opportunity to investigate and evaluate the claim and, if appropriate, to settle it without litigation.

In the past the Maine Supreme Court has granted a “substantial compliance’ exception to this notice requirement, but only when written notice was timely filed but failed to furnish all the information required. Never, though, has the Court decided whether oral notice could constitute substantial compliance – until recently.

In Deschenes v. City of Sanford (2016 ME 56), the plaintiff fell during a visit to city hall. Just two days shy of the 180-day deadline, and for the first time since his accident, he spoke with a city official and handed him some notes but provided no other information until written notice was filed by his attorney 17 days after the deadline had passed. Based on this and the law’s plain language, and also given the crucial purpose of the notice requirement, the Court held that “oral notice can never constitute substantial compliance.”

Although this decision will be of interest primarily to personal injury and government defense attorneys, it also underscores the Law Court’s historically strict reading of the MTCA in favor of governmental immunity. (By R.P.F.)