¶ 1 Before initiating an action for damages against a public entity, a claimant must provide a notice of claim … Section 12-821.01.A requires … that a notice of claim include a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount. … We hold that [the letter] does not [conform].

¶ 3 [McDonald's letter identified:] "All economic damages … in an amount anticipated to be approximately $35,000.00 per year or more going forward over the next 18 years"; "Compensatory damages for emotional distress … in an amount no less than $300,000.00"; [and] "General damages … in an amount of no less than $200,000.00."

¶ 9 The notice of claim statute is clear and unequivocal. … This language unmistakably instructs claimants to include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim. … Compliance with this statute is not difficult; the statute does not require that claimants reveal the amount that they will demand at trial if litigation ensues but simply requires that claimants identify the specific amount for which they will settle and provide facts supporting that amount.

Look at other cases that speak to this rule: Yahweh v. City of Phoenix; Donovan v. Yavapai Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.; Havasupai Tribe v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents.

¶ 10 We agree … that McDonald's claim letter does not include a specific amount for which her claim can be settled. McDonald's repeated use of qualifying language makes it impossible to ascertain the precise amount for which the District could have settled her claim. …

¶ 11 … the amounts identified in McDonald's letter cannot be considered specific. By failing to state a specific amount that she would accept to settle her claims, McDonald failed to comply with that statutory requirement.

← Back to Topic 7

Answered all the questions you have? Finish → Reflection & export