Lee v. State

• Decision Date: 25 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. CV-07-0293-PR.,CV-07-0293-PR.
• Citation: Lee v. State, 182 P.3d 1169, 218 Ariz. 235 (Ariz. 2008)
• Parties: James L. LEE, individually and as the surviving husband of Teresa C. Lee, deceased; Kyung Hee Kim and Tae Gun Kim, children of Hyeon Bai Kim and Kyung Nim Bea Kim, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Arizona, a governmental entity, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

182 P.3d 1169

218 Ariz. 235

James L. LEE, individually and as the survivinghusband of Teresa C. Lee, deceased; Kyung Hee Kim and Tae Gun Kim, children of Hyeon Bai Kim and Kyung Nim Bea Kim, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.STATE of Arizona, a governmental entity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. CV-07-0293-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

April 25, 2008.

Law Office of Scott E. Boehm, P.C., by Scott E. Boehm, Phoenix, and Law Office of Glynn W. Gilcrease, P.C. by Glynn W. Gilcrease, Jr., Peter M. Gorski, Tempe, Attorneys for James L. Lee, individually and as the survivinghusband of Teresa C. Lee, deceased; Kyung Hee Kim and Tae Gun Kim, children of Hyeon Bai Kim and Kyung Nim Bea Kim, deceased.

Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General, by George Crough, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel P. Schaack, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine O'Grady, Special Assistant Attorney, General, Phoenix, Attorneys for the State of Arizona.

Law Offices of Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. by Charles M. Brewer, John B. Brewer, David L. Abney, Dane L. Wood, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Charles M. Brewer, Ltd.

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., by Eileen Dennis GilBride, Lori L. Voepel, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Counties Insurance Pool, Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, and City of Phoenix.

OPINION

BALES, Justice.

¶ 1 Before suing the state or its subdivisions, a person generally must file a notice of claim with the prospective defendant in compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes("A.R.S.")section 12-821.01(A)(2003).We hold that proof of mailing a notice of claim may create a material issue of fact as to its filing even though the State denies receiving the notice.

I.

¶ 2James Lee's car crashed through a highway guardrail; the accident seriously injured Lee and resulted in the death of three passengers.Lee and representatives of the passengers (collectively "Lee") filed a complaint against the State, alleging negligent design, construction, and maintenance of the roadway and guardrail.The State moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming it never received a notice of claim as required by A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).

¶ 3 In response, Lee submitted a "proof of service" signed under penalty of perjury by a staff member of his attorney's firm, attesting that the notice had been sent to the attorney general via regular United States mail more than a week before the statutory deadline for its receipt.SeeA.R.S. § 12-821.01(A)(requiring filing of claim "within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues").The superior court granted the State's motion and dismissed Lee's claim.

¶ 4The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the statute required Lee to show that the notice actually arrived at the attorney general's office without relying on the common law rule that a letter properly mailed is presumed to reach its destination.Lee v. State, 215 Ariz. 540, 543 ¶¶ 10-12, 161 P.3d 583, 586(App.2007).Because Lee had no evidence of delivery other than the fact of mailing, the court concluded that the "plaintiffs did not raise a material question of fact regarding whether the State actually received their notice."Id. at 545 ¶ 17, 161 P.3d at 588.

¶ 5We accepted review to address this issue of statewide importance.We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona ConstitutionandA.R.S. § 12-120.24(2003).

II.

A.

¶ 6 Arizona law requires that "[p]ersons who have claims against a public entity ... shall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public entity ... as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure."A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).If a claimant fails to file the notice of claim as required, the claim is barred.Id.

¶ 7 Both Lee and the State agree that "file" means actual delivery of the notice of claim to a person authorized to accept service.Both also agree that Lee was free to use regular mail to accomplish the filing.The dispute turns on the proof required to show that a filing occurred when the State denies receiving the notice of claim.The State argues that if it denies receipt and the claimant lacks contrary evidence other than proof of mailing, the claim must be dismissed under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).We disagree.

¶ 8We have long recognized what is best termed a "mail delivery rule."This common law rule has two components: one a presumption, and one a rule regarding the sufficiency of evidence.Under the mail delivery rule, there is a presumption that a "letter properly addressed, stamped and deposited in the United States mail will reach the addressee."State v. Mays,96 Ariz. 366, 367-68, 395 P.2d 719, 721(1964);see alsoRosenthal v. Walker,111 U.S. 185, 193, 4 S.Ct. 382, 28 L.Ed. 395(1884)("The rule is well settled that if a letter properly directed is proved to have been ... put into the post-office ... it is presumed ... that it reached its destination....").That is, proof of the fact of mailing will, absent any contrary evidence, establish that delivery occurred.If, however, the addressee denies receipt, the presumption of delivery disappears, but the fact of mailing still has evidentiary force.Andrews v. Blake, 205 Ariz. 236, 242 ¶ 22 n. 3, 69 P.3d 7, 13 n. 3(2003).The denial of receipt creates an issue of fact that the factfinder must resolve to determine if delivery actually occurred.Id.

¶ 9The State argues that the mail delivery rule has no effect here because A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) requires that a claimant"file" the notice of claim.This language, the State contends, means that Lee must present direct evidence that the notice was timely delivered, for instance, by presenting evidence of the receipt of a claim sent by certified mail or of physical delivery by the claimant or a courier.In other words, the State interprets "file" as implicitly limiting the type of proof that will suffice to show delivery of the notice.

¶ 10 By their terms, however, neither the word "file" nor the statute as a whole speaks to the proof required to show delivery.The State would have us read into the word "file" not only the requirement of actual delivery, but also an abrogation of the long-held understanding that mail properly sent will reach its destination.Such an interpretation goes against our prior conception of the mail delivery rule.In Andrews,we noted that the presumption would apply even though we interpreted the lease-option contract at issue to require "actual receipt ... of [the lessee's] written exercise of the option."205 Ariz. at 241 ¶ 18, 69 P.3d at 12.The State attempts to distinguish Andrews because it concerned a private contract rather than a specific statutory filing requirement.This distinction is unpersuasive.Andrews is instructive precisely because it demonstrates that an "actual receipt" requirement, like the one imposed by A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A), is compatible with the mail delivery rule.

¶ 11 Indeed, the State's interpretation ignores the logic underlying the mail delivery rule.The rule is not a legal fiction; it reflects the commonly recognized fact that the mail almost always works.Thus, although a denial of receipt rebuts the legal presumption that a piece of mail was received, a factfinder may still infer from the fact of mailing that the mail did reach its destination.That is, even absent any presumption of receipt, mailing remains probative evidence that a letter was actually delivered to the designated recipient.

¶ 12The legislature could have specified what sort of delivery constitutes a filing, or restricted the evidence relevant to showing something was filed, but it did not.New York law, for example, requires many claims to "be filed with the clerk ... and ... served upon the attorney general ... either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested."N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 11(a)(i)(McKinney Supp.2008).In New York, regular mail is therefore an insufficient method of filing a claim against the state and is not evidence that something was filed.SeePhilippe v. State,248 A.D.2d 827, 669 N.Y.S.2d 759, 760(1998)(affirming dismissal when claimant used ordinary mail to serve the state).In contrast, Arizona law does not require formal service and allows claimants to mail their notices to the state.¹

¶ 13 The dissent argues that the statute precludes Lee from relying on proof of mailing because it requires a claimant to "file ... as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure."A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).Dissent¶¶ 26-28.The dissent's reading of the statute omits critical language.Claimants must "file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public entity or public employee as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure."Id.(emphasis added).Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 4.1(h)-(j) clearly "set forth" the "person or persons authorized to accept service" for various public entities.By contrast, nothing in the rules defines how filing must occur.The rules do not prohibit mail as a form of filing nor do they indicate that mailing, though probative, is inadmissible to prove filing.We agree with the dissent that to successfully file requires receipt, but we decline to interpret "file" to forbid a claimant from proving a contested filing by pointing to the fact of mailing.

¶ 14 The dissent believes that the reference to the rules of procedure "mandates that we treat the filing requirement under the notice of claims statute in the same manner as we and other jurisdictions have consistently treated filing with a court."Dissent¶ 32.The dissent then points to several cases that refuse to "apply the mailbox rule to the filing of a document with the clerk of court."Id.These cases, however, are inapposite because of the differences between a court clerk and a party to the litigation.

¶ 15 Lee's position with respect to the State is not "identical to that of a civil litigant filing a document with the clerk of court."Di...