GRISHAM v. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY
2017 OK 69
Okla.2017Background
- Two couples (Grisham and Rutledge) suffered sewer backup damage and filed the City of Oklahoma City’s GTCA claim form claiming property damage only; the City denied the claims.
- Plaintiffs sued in Oklahoma County District Court asserting property damage and nuisance/personal-injury-type damages (annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort).
- At trial the court sustained the City’s demurrer as to the personal-injury/nuisance claims, concluding the GTCA notices were insufficient to support those claims; jury verdicts for plaintiffs were reduced to the $25,000 property-damage cap.
- On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a GTCA notice that specifies only property damage suffices to preserve subsequent suit for non-property (personal-injury/"any other loss") damages arising from the same occurrence.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a notice limited to "property damage" is sufficient only for property claims and is not sufficient to notify the government of claims for "any other loss" (personal injury); the Court applied this rule prospectively and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the GTCA notice term "claim" must identify types of damages (property vs. any other loss) to support a later District Court suit for those damages | Grisham: A GTCA notice need not specify types of damages with particularity; the provided notices substantially complied and preserved all damages arising from the occurrence | City: Notice must specify property vs. other damages; notices here limited to property cannot support personal-injury/nuisance claims | Held: A notice claiming "property damage" alone suffices for property claims only; it does not suffice for "any other loss." Claimants who wish to sue for non-property loss must give notice for those losses. (Prospective rule.) |
| Whether the GTCA’s statutory notice requirements (51 O.S. § 156) make specifying damage types mandatory/jurisdictional | Grisham: §156 does not require specifying damage types; mandatory elements are date/time/place/circumstances, amount, ID, contact info; substantial compliance is adequate | City: Because §156 uses "shall," the Act requires specificity about damage types to trigger the waiver to sue | Held: §156’s mandatory elements do not include identifying property vs. other loss; the statute does not require specifying damage type, but a claimant may elect to limit notice to property and thereby foreclose other claims unless additional notice is given. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ notices were adequate to permit jury consideration of nuisance/personal-injury claims at trial | Grisham: Trial evidence supported nuisance/personal-injury claims and jury should have been instructed | City: Notices did not include personal-injury claims so trial properly excluded those instructions | Held: Trial court erred by refusing personal-injury instructions based on insufficiency of notice; because the Court announces a prospective rule, remand for new trial was required. |
| Retroactivity: Should the Court apply its construction retroactively to this case | Grisham: (implicit) apply existing law to preserve jury verdict | City: (implicit) rely on prior decisions allowing split notices | Held: Court applied the new clarifying rule prospectively (trap-for-the-unwary rationale); nonetheless remanded for new trial because the rule clarified an unresolved procedural point and fairness required retrial on both claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minie v. Hudson, 934 P.2d 1082 (Okla. 1997) ("shall" in §156 treated as legislative mandate requiring written claim; substantial-compliance discussion)
- Truelock v. City of Del City, 967 P.2d 1183 (Okla. 1998) (sewer-backup damages for inconvenience/annoyance are "any other loss," not property damage)
- Kennedy v. City of Talihina, 265 P.3d 757 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (permitted split GTCA notices and addressed timeliness/consequences of separate notices)
- Hall v. GEO Group, 324 P.3d 399 (Okla. 2014) (GTCA notice is a mandatory prerequisite jurisdictional requirement)
- Shanbour v. Hollingsworth, 918 P.2d 73 (Okla. 1996) (GTCA written notice and denial prerequisites for suit)