806 Procedure for Claims Against the Government

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

There is a one-year statute of limitations for all actions against anypublic entity or public employee. Claims must be filed within 180 days.

Suits against the state may be brought only in the manner prescribed by the legislature. Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 18.

(a) Generally

In 1993, the Arizona legislature changed the one-year statute of limitations for claims against the state under A.R.S. § 12-821 to apply to “personal injury actions.” Other actions would therefore appear to be governed by the normal six-year statute for breach of written contracts and two years for tort claims, unless other limitations are found in the more narrowly applicable statutes or contract provisions.

In 1994, A.R.S. § 12-821 was changed, and A.R.S. § 12-821.01 was added.

A.R.S. § 12-821 provides that all actions against any public entity or public employee shall be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues.

A.R.S. § 12-821.01 provides that the action is barred unless a claim has been filed with the person authorized to accept service under the rules of civil procedure within 180 days after the cause of action accrues.

Subsection (B) provides that the cause of action accrues when the damaged party realizes that he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality, or condition that caused or contributed to the damage. Mayer Unified Sch. Dist. v. Winkleman, 219 Ariz. 562, 566, 201 P.3d 523, 527 (2009).

Subsection (C) provides that the time to give notice and to sue does not begin to run until a final decision on any claims that must be submitted to dispute resolution processes or administrative claims processes.

Section 12-821.01 does not apply to non-monetary claims, e.g. injunctive or declaratory relief that would not result in a monetary reward or have any indirect budgetary effects. Home Builders Ass’n of Cent. Arizona v. Kard, 219 Ariz. 374, 381, 199 P.3d 629, 636 (App. 2008); State v. Mabery Ranch Co., 216 Ariz. 233, 244-45, 165 P.3d 211, 222-23 (App. 2007).

The sufficiency of a notice of claim is judged on the face of the claim. City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 575, 201 P.3d 529, 536 (2009).

A settlement amount must be specified to make a valid claim. Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490 (2007). The notice must be read as a whole. Jones v. Cochise County, 218 Ariz. 372, 375-76, 187 P.3d 97, 100-01 (App. 2008). The statute must be strictly complied with; however, courts should not elevate form over substance. Id. at 377, 187 P.3d at 102. To “satisfy the ¡®sum certain’ requirement, the claimant must be willing to let the government finally settle the claim by paying the amount demanded in the notice of claim.” Yollin v. Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24, 28, 191 P.3d 1040, 1044 (App. 2008). Nothing in the statute requires that the claimant’s sum certain amount equal the claimant’s lowest possible offer. Id. at 30, 191 P.3d at 1046.

Under the circumstances of the case, A.R.S. § 12-821.01 is not read to require that one who asserts a single claim against multiple public entities or employees must make separate settlement demands on each of the various alleged individual wrongdoers. Havasupai Tribe of Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents, 220 Ariz. 214, 229, 204 P.3d 1063, 1078 (App. 2008).

With respect to class actions, A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) requires a putative class representative to

include in his claim notice a “specific amount” for which his individual claim (not the class claim) can be settled. The notice should also include a statement that, if litigation ensues, the representative intends to seek certification of a plaintiff class. If a class is later certified, the notice of claim will serve as a represent-tative notice for other class members.

City of Phoenix, 219 Ariz. at 573, 201 P.3d at 534.

Facts supporting the specific settlement amount stated by the claimant must be set forth in the claim. The Arizona Supreme Court has defined the level of specificity required of the supporting facts as follows:

[A] claimant complies with the supporting-facts requirement of Section 12-821.01.A by providing the factual foundation that the claimant regards as adequate to permit the public entity to evaluate the specific amount claimed. This standard does not require a claimant to provide an exhaustive list of facts; as long as a claimant provides facts to support the amount claimed, he has complied with the supporting-facts requirement of the statute, and courts should not scrutinize the claimant’s description of facts to determine the ¡®sufficiency’ of the factual disclosure.

Backus v. State of Arizona, 220 Ariz. 101, 106-07, 203 P.3d 499, 504-05 (2009).

The claim must identify all parties against which it is made, and must be served on every party. Harris v. Cochise Health Sys.,215 Ariz. 344, 351, 160 P.3d 223, 230 (App. 2007). In the case of a claim made against a public agency and its employee or employees, the claim must name the agency and the employee or employees and must be served on all of them. Id. Failure to comply with the statute cannot be cured by actual notice or substantial compliance. Id.

A claimant is required to amend the notice of claim or file a new notice of claim to preserve subsequent related claims arising from different wrongs committed by the same entity or employee but not included within the original notice. Haab v. County of Maricopa, 219 Ariz. 9, 13, 191 P.3d 1025, 1029 (App. 2008).

Filing under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) may be accomplished through the regular mail, and proof of...