On January 31, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One (San Diego), issued an opinion in Andrews v. Metropolitan Transit System (D0775500, Jan. 31, 2022), holding that the six-month statute of limitations did not apply where the public entity issued a defective notice of rejection for a tort claim.
In Andrews, plaintiff sustained injuries, including a broken hip, while a passenger on a public bus. After her injury, plaintiff’s attorney notified the public entity transit system in writing of the representation and the injury. The public entity rejected plaintiff’s claim, and the notice included the following warning: “[s]ubject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action in municipal or superior court of the State of California on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6 [¶] This time limitation applies only to causes of action arising under California law for which a claim is mandated by the California Government Tort Claims Act, Government Code Sections 900 et[] seq. Other causes of action, including those arising under federal law, may have shorter time limitations for filing.” The public entity addressed the notice to plaintiff’s attorney, but the attorney denied receiving the notice. Eight months later, plaintiff filed suit against the public entity and the bus driver. The public entity moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations where plaintiff filed suit more than six months after the public entity mailed a notice of rejection of her tort claims. The trial court found the complaint was untimely and granted the public entity’s motion. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the public entity issued a defective notice that did not include the full warning required by Government Code section 913, subdivision (b), and therefore, the two-year statute of limitations applied.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment holding that the public entity issued a defective notice of rejection. The Government Claims Act defines the public entity’s responsibilities once it receives a written claim for damages. “Regardless of whether the public entity acts or chooses not to act on a claim, the Government Claims Act requires written notice to the claimant or the claimant’s representative.” Government Code section 913 governs the requirements for the written notice. Specifically, subdivision (b) of section 913 requires—by the use of the word “shall” in the statute—that a warning be included in all notices for claims that are rejected in whole or in part: “If the claim is rejected, in whole or in part, the notice required by subdivision (a) shall include a warning in substantially the following form: [¶] ‘WARNING [¶] Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. [¶] You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.”
Indeed, “[a] public entity’s compliance with section 913 determines the statute of limitations applicable to a claimant’s subsequent lawsuit.” If notice is given under section 913 the lawsuit must be commenced no later than six months after the date of such notice is served personally or by mail. However, if written notice is not given pursuant to section 913, the statute of limitations is two years from accrual of the cause of action. As such, failure to provide a proper section 913 notice would extend the statute of limitations. Here, the public entity did not provide a proper rejection notice because it omitted the second half of the warning that states “[y]ou may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.’”
This opinion serves as a reminder to public entities to carefully review their section 913 notice of rejection and to not stray away or omit any of the warning language contained in the statute. Even seemingly innocuous omissions could render the notice of rejection as defective and alter the statute of limitations timeline.
This document is intended to provide you with information about public entity law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact the authors. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.