City of Indianapolis v. Rachael Buschman, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 443

Buschman was rear-ended by a City police officer on July 25, 2008 in Indianapolis.
Buschman filed a tort claim notice to the City on August 1, 2008 before retaining counsel.
The notice described the accident, provided contact details, listed officer information, attached the police report and photos, and stated damages and a claim amount.
The notice included the statement: 'Damage: Rear Bumper and side panels damaged, see estimate from Sam Swope' and 'No injuries.'
Buschman later filed suit (July 9, 2010) asserting personal injuries from the collision; the City moved for summary judgment arguing the notice did not substantially comply with the ITCA.
The trial court granted summary judgment; the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed; this Court held the notice substantially complied and affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice substantially complied with ITCA requirements	Buschman’s notice informed intent, timing, and facts; included injury material beyond minimal.	Notice stated 'No injuries' and failed to alert injury claims; not substantially compliant.	Yes, notice substantially complied.

Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d 497 (Ind. 1989) (purpose is to inform municipality for prompt investigation; substantial compliance standard)
Hinshaw v. Bd. of Com’rs of Jay Cnty., 611 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1993) (strict construction against limitations on right to sue)
Boushehry v. City of Indianapolis, 931 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (notice may be adequate even with extra information beyond requirements)
Lukowiak v. Howard Cnty. Bd. of Com’rs, 810 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (panel decision discussed as not binding; distinguishable facts)
Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012) (appellate rule on undeveloped arguments; waiver considerations)