PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Smith
337 Ga. App. 120
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Oct. 3, 2012, Callaham was injured in an auto accident at a Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) terminal in Savannah.
- In Oct. 2012 Callaham’s counsel sent a letter to GPA’s claims adjuster advising representation, notifying of injuries, attaching the police report, and requesting policy information.
- In June 2013 counsel mailed by certified mail a formal notice of claim to the Risk Management Division, Dept. of Administrative Services (as required by OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(2)).
- Counsel did not mail or personally deliver a copy of that statutory notice to the Georgia Ports Authority itself.
- Callaham sued in May 2014; GPA moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the Act’s ante litem notice requirement. The trial court granted dismissal, and Callaham appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding strict statutory compliance with the ante litem notice delivery-to-agency requirement was mandatory and not satisfied by the earlier letter to the adjuster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending a notice to Risk Management plus an earlier letter to GPA’s adjuster satisfies OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(2)’s requirement to deliver or mail a copy of the notice to the state agency | Callaham: the Oct. 2012 letter to GPA’s adjuster combined with the June 2013 notice to Risk Management constitute the required copy to GPA | GPA: the statute requires a copy of the statutory notice itself be mailed or personally delivered to the agency; Callaham never did so | Held: No — strict compliance required; the letter lacked required notice elements and did not substitute for mailing the statutory notice to GPA |
| Whether substantial or actual notice can cure failure to strictly comply with the statutory delivery requirement | Callaham: actual notice through the adjuster should excuse strict formality | GPA: actual notice does not excuse the statutory delivery requirement | Held: Actual notice does not excuse the statutory requirement; strict compliance is required |
| Whether the defect affected subject-matter jurisdiction | Callaham: implied that procedural notice was satisfied, so suit could proceed | GPA: failure to comply deprives court of jurisdiction under the Tort Claims Act | Held: Dismissal proper because trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624, 532 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. 2000) (statutory notice language is governed by plain meaning; strict construction applies)
- DeFloria v. Walker, 317 Ga.App. 578, 732 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (strict compliance—not mere substantial compliance—required for ante-litem notice)
- Dempsey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Georgia, 256 Ga.App. 291, 568 S.E.2d 154 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (ante-litem notice must be mailed/delivered to Risk Management with a copy to the agency)
- Grant v. Faircloth, 252 Ga.App. 795, 556 S.E.2d 928 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) (ante-litem notice must meet the statutory timing and delivery requirements; substantial compliance inadequate)
- Kim v. Dept. of Transp., 235 Ga.App. 480, 510 S.E.2d 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (failure to provide the statutory notice defeats subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Williams v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga.App. 88, 619 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (actual notice does not excuse strict compliance with ante-litem delivery requirements)