639 S.W.3d 21
Tenn.2022Background
- On Dec. 11, 2017, a TDOT truck parked in the center lane of State Highway 111 caused a collision in which Steven Kampmeyer was seriously injured.
- Steven filed written notice of his claim with the Division of Claims and Risk Management on Aug. 9, 2018; after 90 days without resolution the Division transferred the matter to the Tennessee Claims Commission.
- On Dec. 5, 2018, Steven and his wife Melissa jointly filed a complaint in the Claims Commission; that complaint included Melissa's loss-of-consortium claim, which had not been included in Steven's written notice to the Division.
- The State moved to dismiss Melissa's consortium claim as time-barred for failure to give the written notice required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(a)(1); the Claims Commission dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The sole legal question before the Tennessee Supreme Court was whether a complaint filed with the Claims Commission within the statute of limitations satisfies the statute’s requirement that written notice be given to the Division of Claims and Risk Management.
- The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on Hunter v. State, overruled Hunter, held the statute requires notice to the Division (not the Commission), and affirmed dismissal of Melissa’s claim as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a complaint filed with the Claims Commission within the statute of limitations satisfies the § 9-8-402(a)(1) requirement to give written notice "to the Division of Claims and Risk Management" | The joint complaint filed in the Claims Commission (filed within one-year limitation) provided the required written notice; under Hunter the Commission should have forwarded it to the Division | The statute explicitly requires notice to the Division; filing in the Claims Commission does not fulfill the statutory condition precedent and the Commission is not required to forward complaints to the Division | The statute requires written notice to be given to the Division. Hunter is overruled. Melissa’s consortium claim was not timely noticed and is barred; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreno v. City of Clarksville, 479 S.W.3d 795 (Tenn. 2015) (explains the written-notice/90-day settlement period scheme and distinguishes notice from a Claims Commission complaint)
- Mullins v. State, 320 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2010) (discusses creation and jurisdictional role of the Claims Commission)
- Ki v. State, 78 S.W.3d 876 (Tenn. 2002) (recognizes that loss-of-consortium claims are separate and derivative but distinct claims)
- Ken Smith Auto Parts v. Thomas, 599 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2020) (presumption that legislature means what it says when it omits language)
- Mier v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 614 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2020) (principle that courts should not insert omitted statutory provisions)