Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix

• Decision Date: 22 March 1990
• Docket Number: CA-CV,No. 1,1
• Citation: Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 164 Ariz. 462, 793 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. App. 1990)
• Parties: Grant HOLLINGSWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. 88-443.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 1129

793 P.2d 1129

164 Ariz. 462

Grant HOLLINGSWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.The CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 88-443.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department D.

March 22, 1990.

As Corrected March 22, 1990.

Review Denied July 10, 1990. ^*

Heinzl & Franklin, P.A. by Joe Lawrence Heinzl, Tempe, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli by William R. Jones, Jr., J. Rollie Wightman, Phoenix, for defendant-appellee.

CLABORNE, Judge.

We once again consider an appeal of a dismissal of an action against a public entity because the plaintiff allegedly did not comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.

The trial court concluded that the appellantGrant Hollingsworth(Hollingsworth) failed to submit a "claim" to the City of Phoenix(city) which would satisfy the statute and allow Hollingsworth to thereafter sue the city.The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Hollingsworth sued the city for damages alleging that Phoenix police officers had unjustifiably beaten him after they had stopped his vehicle and placed him under arrest.Before filing suit, Hollingsworth's lawyer sent a letter to the city entitled "Notice of Claim against the City of Phoenix Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821."The complete letter reads:

Let this letter serve as formal written notice/demand that Mr. Grant Holingsworth[sic], by and through counsel undersigned, is presenting his claim against the City of Phoenix and various city employees and agents, for his damages and injuries caused by the intentional and negligent acts of various Phoenix Police Officers.

On or about July 9, 1986, various Phoenix Police officers intentionally beat Mr. Hollingsworth while he was restrained, in violation of his civil rights.Said beating was inflicted without justification, in that, any resistance of arrest by Mr. Hollingsworth had ceased.The beating and subsuquent [sic] abuse resulted in significant and permanant [sic] injuries to Mr. Hollingsworth.My client's medical and dental bills are in excess of $3,000.00.His teeth were broken and he has suffered permanant [sic] damage to his leg.All of these wounds were inflicted after all physical resistance had ended, and were unwarranted abuses of force under color of law.

At present, it would not be practical to demand or offer a sum certain to compensate Mr. Hollingsworth for the physical and emotional pain he has been subjected to by those charged with our safety and protection.However, an educated estimate, of not less than $125,000.00 would be conservative given the aggravated nature of the officer's conduct.

The officers involved have given their "identical" versions of the events in this matter in report # 86-090102.If after reviewing this matter you feel that it warrants a response, please do not hesitate to contact me.Thank you for your anticipated consideration.I await your response.

The Risk Management Division for the city responded:

Dear Mr. Heinzl:

Re: Grant Holingsworth[sic]

OUR CLAIMNO.: 87-0112

GAB CLAIM NO.: UNKNOWN

GAB ADJUSTER: UNKNOWN

A copy of your letter of representation dated June 24, 1987, is being forwarded to GAB Business Services, Inc., the firm contracted to handle all claims presented against the City to completion.Please note your file to this effect.

Their address is: GAB Business Services, Inc., 2150 East Highland Avenue, Suite 204; or P.O. Box 10160, Phoenix, Arizona 85064.Their phone number is 957-7580.

Sincerely,

/s/

PAT PERRY

Claims Analyst

Approximately a month and a half later, the lawyer for the plaintiff received the following correspondence from GAB Business Services:

Dear Mr. Heinzl
                GAB File No.                 :                    48828-16355
                Our Insured                  :                    Phoenix Police Department
                Your Client                  :                    Grant Hollingsworth
                Date of Occurrence           :                    July 9, 1986
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                

In regard to the above, we have found no evidence which would substantiate the

version of this occurrence given by your client.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will not be offering him

compensation.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to give me a

call.

Sincerely,

/s/

Steven H. Coons

Adjuster Upon receipt of the GAB letter, Hollingsworth's attorney filed suit and, thereafter, the attorneys for the city moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that no "sum certain" was demanded in the letter which, therefore, failed to comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.The trial court agreed with the city and dismissed the action, and this appeal followed.

The position of the parties is clear.According to Hollingsworth, the claim letter contains a "sum certain" and, therefore, complies with the statute and the case law; and, even if it does not, it is in accord with the purpose of the statute.The city responds by arguing that the claim letter does not specifically or substantially satisfy the requirement that a "sum certain" demand must be stated in the letter in order to make a "claim."Appellee contends that the failure to comply with this requirement is jurisdictional and the trial court was, therefore, correct in dismissing the complaint.¹

We disagree.

To make the reasons behind our decision clear, we revisit the manner by which a "sum certain" became engrafted on A.R.S. § 12-821.

As a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against a public entity, the injured party is required to first present an administrative claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.Section 12-821 presently provides ² in part that:

A.Persons who have claims against a public entity or public employee shall file such claims ... within twelve months after the cause of action accrues.Any claim which is not filed within twelve months ... is barred and no action may be maintained....

The statute, through its many amendments, has never defined the word "claim."In 1975, this court in State v. Brooks, 23 Ariz.App. 463, 534 P.2d 271(1975), defined the word.The court first discussed the purpose of A.R.S. § 12-821, which is: 1) to afford an opportunity to the agency to investigate the merits of the claim and reasonably assess its potential for liability; 2) to afford the opportunity to arrive at a settlement of the controversy; and 3) to establish an orderly procedure by which the legislature will be advised of claims in instances where no provision has been made for payment.Id. at 466, 534 P.2d at 274.See alsoPritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427, 430-433, 788 P.2d 1178, 1181-1184(1990);Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 423, 425-426, 788 P.2d 1174, 1176-1177(1990)(acknowledges the purpose of A.R.S. § 12-821 as set forth in Brooks and holds that the statute does not bar class actions against public entities);Johnson v. Superior Court, 158 Ariz. 507, 510, 763 P.2d 1382, 1385(App.1988)(Fernandez, J., dissenting)(purpose of claim statute as enunciated in Brooks is implicit in the current statute).A valid claim, the court said, must contain enough information to allow the state to intelligently ascertain these purposes so that it can conscientiously allow or disallow that claim.Brooks, 23 Ariz.App. at 466, 534 P.2d at 274.The letter in Brooks did not contain any amount, and the court said:

While the letter does contain sufficient information to allow the State to investigate its potential liability, it is wholly defective in stating an amount that is sought to satisfy this potential liability.

Id. at 467, 534 P.2d at 275.

Four years later, this court narrowed the meaning of "claim."In Dassinger v Oden, 124 Ariz. 551, 606 P.2d 41(App.1979), the claim letter, after first setting forth a description of the claim, itemized $1,300.00 for medical expenses, $1,800.00 for future medical expenses, and $200.00 for mileage, but did not place a value on the claim for wages, pain and mental anguish, and inconvenience.The court held that such a letter did not meet the Brooks standard and said:

There is no sum certain contained in the letter which plaintiffs would have been satisfied to settle for.

Id. at 553, 606 P.2d at 43(emphasis supplied).For the first time, the words "sum certain" became the requirement.A reading of Dassinger clearly shows that the "sum certain" definition came from federal cases construing the Federal Tort Claims Act.Id.

The city, relying on Brooks and Dassinger, asserts we must affirm the trial court because no precise sum certain was contained in Hollingsworth's letter.While we do not disagree that a claim filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821 must contain a sum certain, we do not find either case dispositive of whether that requirement was satisfied here.Unlike the claim letter in Brooks, appellant's letter was not wholly deficient in stating a dollar amount sought, nor did it, as in Dassinger, assert claims for lost wages and personal injury without placing any value on the claim.Rather, appellant's claim letter stated that his medical and dental expenses were "in excess of $3,000.00" and that he suffered "physical and emotional pain."The letter clearly stated that an educated estimate of the total value of the claim was not less than $125,000.00.It is because appellant placed an estimated total value on his claim that we do not find either Brooks or Dassinger controlling.

From this perspective, the issue is not whether Hollingsworth's letter contained an exact sum certain, but whether the letter provided the city with an opportunity to arrive at a responsible settlement.

Our review of Arizona case law reveals no decisions which resolve this precise issue.Because both Brooks and Dassinger appear to rely, in part, on the Federal Tort Claims Act and federal judicial decisions interpreting that act in grafting the "sum certain" requirement on A.R.S. § 12-821, we...