GRISHAM v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY
2017 Okla. LEXIS 75
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Two couples sued Oklahoma City after sewer backups damaged their homes; they filed claim forms with the city that checked property-damage and did not expressly claim personal-injury/"any other loss."
- The city denied the claims; plaintiffs sued in district court alleging property damage and nuisance/personal-injury harms; a jury returned awards exceeding the GTCA property cap.
- Trial court concluded the GTCA claim notices were limited to property damage, sustained demurrers to the personal-injury/nuisance evidence, and reduced each couple's recovery to the $25,000 property cap.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a GTCA notice limited to property damage suffices to preserve personal-injury claims arising from the same occurrence.
- The Supreme Court held that a notice expressly claiming only "property damage" is sufficient for property-damage claims but is not sufficient notice for "any other loss" (personal injury) arising from the same event, and rendered that rule prospective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a GTCA notice claiming only property damage preserves personal-injury claims arising from the same occurrence | Grisham: GTCA notice need not specify different damage types; a single claim notice suffices for all damages from the occurrence | City: Notice must specify property vs. other damages with particularity to preserve different categories of loss | Held: A notice that expressly claims "property damage" but contains no language of "any other loss" is sufficient only for property damage and not for other losses; claimant must give notice of other losses to sue for them (prospective rule) |
| Whether §156's notice requirements make identification of damage types mandatory/jurisdictional | Grisham: §156 does not require specifying damage types; substantial compliance satisfied | City: The Act's language and liability limits require specificity | Held: §156 requires certain elements (date, time, amount, etc.) as mandatory, but it does not mandate stating damage categories; nonetheless, when claimant affirmatively limits notice to property damage on a provided form, that limits the claim to property for later suit |
| Whether claim-splitting (filing separate notices for different damage types) is allowed and its consequences | Grisham: Claimant may file a single notice covering all damages or rely on general notice; splitting is not required | City: Splitting is permissible but requires separate timely notices for each damage type | Held: GTCA permits separate notices, but doing so creates procedural traps—each notice starts the denial/limitations clock for that category; failure to provide a separate notice for other losses can bar later suit on them |
| Retroactivity of the rule that property-only notices do not preserve other-loss claims | Grisham: If the rule is new, it should apply to the case | City: The rule should apply to existing cases | Held: Court applies a prospective rule — the holding governs notices filed after this opinion when specific conditions are met (notice filed after opinion, expressly claims property damage, contains no language for other loss, and uses a form that provides for other damage types) |
Key Cases Cited
- Minie v. Hudson, 934 P.2d 1082 (Okla. 1997) (statutory amendment making notice "in writing" treated as mandatory; discussed compliance standard)
- Truelock v. City of Del City, 967 P.2d 1183 (Okla. 1998) (held inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort from sewer backup constitute "any other loss," not property damage)
- Kennedy v. City of Talihina, 265 P.3d 757 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (allowed separate GTCA notices for different damage types but explained denial of a specific claim triggers time to sue for that claim)
- Shanbour v. Hollingsworth, 918 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1996) (compliance with written notice provisions under GTCA is a prerequisite to suit)
- Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 P.2d 515 (Okla. 1964) (discussed prospective application of new procedural rules to avoid traps for the unwary)