Jose Zavala and Antoinette Zavala v. James Poling and the City of Crown Point, Indiana (mem. dec.), 45A03-1706-CT-1250

On August 14, 2015, Jose and Antoinette Zavala were in an automobile collision with Crown Point police officer James Poling.
On August 27, 2015 Crown Point’s insurer (HCC Public Risk Claim Service) requested information; on September 1, 2015 the Zavalas’ Illinois attorney, Peter Vrdolyak, faxed the insurer a notice of representation and a “Notice of Attorney’s Lien.”
It is unclear whether Crown Point’s governing body or the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission ever received any notice; the city’s records and affidavits indicate they did not receive the fax.
The Zavalas sued Crown Point and Poling for negligence and negligent hiring/training on December 22, 2016. Defendants moved (and converted) to summary judgment arguing failure to comply with the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) notice requirements.
The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the purported notice (1) was not served on the required recipients and (2) lacked the required substantive information to substantially comply with ITCA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Zavalas substantially complied with ITCA notice requirements	The September 1 fax (notice of representation and attorney’s lien) — and an affidavit claiming a copy was sent to the city — satisfied notice	Notice was not served on the governing body or on the Risk Management Commission and the city’s records show no receipt	Held: No substantial compliance; summary judgment affirmed
Whether service on the insurer satisfies ITCA notice	Zavalas argued insurer notice and attorney communications sufficed	Defendants relied on precedent that insurer service is insufficient	Held: Service on insurer alone does not satisfy ITCA (insurer service insufficient)
Whether the Notice’s contents met statutory requirements (time/place, facts, damages, names, claimant residence)	The Notice of Attorney’s Lien provided sufficient info and put city on notice	Notice was captioned confusingly (Illinois), omitted key facts: narrative, extent of injuries, damages amount, claimant address, names	Held: Notice substantively insufficient; did not meet §34‑13‑3‑10 elements
Whether estoppel bars defendants from asserting lack of proper notice	Zavalas contended insurer’s adjuster failed to explain ITCA, causing reliance	Defendants noted estoppel was not raised below and there was no clear misrepresentation by city or its adjuster	Held: Estoppel not considered (procedurally defaulted) and would fail on merits absent clear agent misrepresentations

Sedam v. 2JR Pizza Enters., LLC, 84 N.E.3d 1174 (Ind. 2016) (summary judgment standard)
Megenity v. Dunn, 68 N.E.3d 1080 (Ind. 2017) (de novo review for legal questions on summary judgment)
Schoettmer v. Wright, 992 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. 2013) (service on insurer does not substantially comply with ITCA)
Boushehry v. City of Indianapolis, 931 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (notice must substantially comply to avoid dismissal)
Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d 497 (Ind. 1989) (substantial compliance is fact‑sensitive legal question)
City of Indianapolis v. Satz, 377 N.E.2d 623 (Ind. 1978) (ITCA notice is procedural prerequisite; failure may be raised as defense)
Hasty v. Floyd Mem’l Hosp., 612 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (attorney letter insufficient where it lacked required details)
Dunaway v. Allstate Ins. Co., 813 N.E.2d 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (issues not raised below cannot be raised on appeal)
Story Bed & Breakfast, LLP v. Brown Cty. Area Plan Comm’n, 819 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. 2004) (governmental estoppel requires clear agent representations)