Jennifer Moreno v. Georgia Department of Transportation
A21A0961
| Ga. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- On August 2, 2018, a DOT vehicle driven by Roderick Browning collided with Jennifer Moreno’s car; Moreno alleges negligence by Browning and the Georgia DOT.
- Moreno sent an initial ante litem notice to DOAS and DOT by regular and certified mail on August 18, 2018; DOAS acknowledged receipt.
- Moreno later sent a more detailed second notice to DOAS on May 17, 2019, but did not provide a copy to DOT until August 22, 2020.
- Moreno sued DOT and Browning on July 30, 2020; DOT moved to dismiss for failure to comply with ante litem notice requirements under OCGA § 50-21-26.
- The trial court initially denied DOT’s motion but on reconsideration found (1) the first notice omitted the collision location and was thus defective, and (2) the second notice was not provided to DOT within 12 months and therefore was untimely.
- The court dismissed Moreno’s claim against DOT for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the GTCA; dismissal of Browning was not appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the first ante litem notice | Moreno: location not necessary; State could assess value/settle without it | DOT: omission of location violates OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(5)(C) — required element | First notice insufficient; omission of a required element is fatal; strict compliance required |
| Whether the second notice cured the defect and was timely | Moreno: second notice (May 17, 2019) was detailed and met statutory elements | DOT: copy to the allegedly liable agency (DOT) must be sent within 12 months; Moreno did not send to DOT until Aug 22, 2020 | Second notice did not cure because it was not served on DOT within the 12-month statutory period; untimely |
| Whether DOT’s actual knowledge or failure to inform excused noncompliance | Moreno: DOT had actual knowledge and suffered no prejudice; State should have advised insufficiency | DOT: actual notice does not excuse strict statutory compliance; no duty to notify claimant of insufficiency | Actual knowledge or State’s silence does not excuse strict compliance; claimant’s failure deprives court of jurisdiction |
| Jurisdictional consequence of defective notice | Moreno: (implicitly) court retains jurisdiction | DOT: defective or untimely notice preserves sovereign immunity and divests jurisdiction | Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Moreno’s GTCA claim against DOT; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 355 Ga. App. 478 (2020) (ante litem notice requires strict compliance; omission of a required element renders notice insufficient)
- Cummings v. Georgia Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822 (2007) (claimant must identify the agency believed responsible and provide that agency a copy within the 12-month period)
- Callaham v. Georgia Ports Auth., 337 Ga. App. 120 (2016) (failure to send a copy of notice to the allegedly liable State agency within 12 months is noncompliant and warrants dismissal)
- Bailey v. Georgia World Congress Center, 351 Ga. App. 629 (2019) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to comply with ante litem notice requirements)