*1 THE OF BOARD OF REGENTS A01A0301. CLARK OF GEORGIA. SYSTEM UNIVERSITY (552 SE2d Prеsiding Judge.
Andrews, granting order sum- court’s from the trial Mary appeals R. Clark University System the Board of to mary judgment litem (BOR) with the ante comply to failure due to Clark’s Georgiа 50-21- Act, OCGA § Tort Claims Georgia notice requirements (Act). with the 20 et seq.
affirm.1 in a car accident on involved Bouton were H. Joseph
Clark and unsuccessfully attemрted pass 15, 1997, when Bouton October Clark’s car struck operating Bouton was The van that three vehicles. Bouton, for improper cited driveway. into a turning left as she was At the time of charge. plea a nolo contendere entered passing, University Georgia employee, was a incident, allegedly from Watkins Chevrolet University a van operating Leasing. Olds BOR and accident, sued the Clark years two after
Nearly Clark, how- Leasing. Chevrolet Olds d/b/a Watkins Robert Watkins clаim to injury her personal notice of ever, pre-suit did not provide the BOR until on Services and of Administrative the Department the date of loss. 15, 1999, 20 months after June about after from assert- firm, or corporation any person, The Act precludes giving first under that Act without the State against a tort claim 50- statute. OCGA manner mandаted the claim in the notice of “(1) (a). of a claim shall be Notice requires: 21-26 The was discovered of the date the loss 12 months writing within (a) (1). The Act fur- OCGA 50-21-26 have been discovered.” should this article shall be under against state ther “No provides: thereof unless commenced and the courts timely of claim has been until a written notice (3). Substan- OCGA this subsection.” provided of the Act is requirements litem notice with the ante compliance tial v. State not sufficient. McGee a condition “Ante litem notice is Miller, it.” Howard v. which the law suit for filing any jurisdiction to decide this case. mistakenly lacks contends that this Court The State order on sum months before the order was entered several it is true that a dismissal While mary judgment, parties. dispose and all Since did not of all claims the earlier order required 9- express OCGA direction determination order did not make the since the case (b), terminate the action and did not it was not a final 5, (2) (444 Beals, Hadid v. pending co-defendant. remained Co., Spartan Ins. Knowles v. Old Life (1) (b) (476 App. 868, timely question, comply
Without Clark failed to with the statu- tory requirements Nevertheless, ante litem of the Act. Clark precluded by was material issues contends filing disputed fact. Clark claims that the time for suit did not com- 1, 1999, until March she that Bouton mence when discovered was *2 by employee. argues failing identity the State She disclose engaged per his in “concealment se” and commit- such ted that notice that Bouton was a been fraud as would toll the statute of limitation. She contends
nothing police report put in the or the on traffic citation her
University employee that the van had the BOR. pre- To constitute concealment of a cause of so as to action running limitations, vent the some trick artifice must employed prevent investigation, inquiry be or elude or to party mislead and hinder the who has the of action cause obtaining information, from the and acts relied on must be of an аffirmative character and fraudulent.
(Punctuation omitted.) App. Ford, 98, Wilson Tara 200 Inc., v. Ga. 807) (1991). Notwithstanding 100 SE2d Clark’s claim to the contrary, absolutely by employ- the reсord contains no evidence that identity artifice, trick or Bouton concealed the true of his employer or committed such fraud as would or deter debar her from timely bringing § the 9-3-96; Bates, action. See OCGA Edmonds v. App. contrary, Ga. 69, 71 On the it is undisputed accurately report that the motor the lists company, name, driver’s the the and correct owner Providing investigator of the vehicle. correct information traffic to a hardly deception per or “concealment See Wilson, se.” App.
The Act loss, notice within months of the date of the discovery identity within 12 not months of the date of the employer. quietly by the tortfеasor’s length “A cannot ‘sit for a exceeding of time in limitations, that named statute (its) operation and avoid its and save cause of action the mere alle- (it) gation only discovery’ recently. [Cit.]” made the Jones v. Bd. App. Ga., 448, &c. Because the claim was not to the State required by the manner 15, within 12 statute months оf October jurisdictional prerequisite 1997, to suit was satisfied not and superior properly granted summary judgment court to the BOR. See (1) (b). App. Howard, 222 Ga. at 871 note thаt issues addressed the dissent were raised below nor here. neither Smith, J., Miller Johnson, J., Ruffin, P. P. Judgment affirmed. J., JJ, dissents. Eldridge, concur. Ellington, dissenting. Judge, Eldridge, Assembly crafting The General
I
dissent.
respectfully
stated:
plainly
clearly, unambiguously,
Claims
State Tort
commenced
article shall be
state under this
“[n]o
and until a
unless
thereof
the courts
as pro
timеly presented
has
of claim
been
written notice
1883,
1994,
L.
1992,
p.
p.
Ga. L.
in this subsection.”
vided
(a) (3);
Wil
128,
50; OCGA
p.
Ga. L.
Resources,
Summary to deal with pleas and is not the apprоpriate matter i.e., subject jurisdiction, lack of abatement, dilatory plea, venue, insufficiency process, person, lack of which party, lack indispensable service of insufficiency process, on the merits adjudication do not cause an are defenses that dilatory v. Beazley, See State Bar prejudice. but dismissal without 422) (1986); Heritage Corp. Nat. Gardens, Mount Olive Mem. (1) McPherson, 271, 272 McPherson v. Farms, 232 Ga. Talmadge Co. v. Ogden Equip. v. Delta Equities, Investors Mtg. Larwin Con-Chem, (1973); Hеmphill 457) (1973). Therefore, the trial of dismissal with- instead summary judgment in granting
court erred (1) matter it lacked prejudice out because: is not case; summary judgment adjudicatе the merits juris- to deal with lack procedure appropriate reversed and vacated. should be diction, long 12 months are case, since the this practical As a give notice requirement given, notice cannot now be past limita of a statute of to suit has the effect a condition has now to sue the State tion, opportunity because window under a minors, or others However, incompetents, in cases of closed. window within the 12-month where the dismissаl comes disability or statutory now give proper could opportunity, Howard v. the condition See satisfy precedent. to the State and at supra 544-545. Dept. of Transp., July 6, 200
Decided Jones, E. for
Ronny appellant. Krause, Baker, General, Assis- Allyson G. Attorney Thurbert E. General, Attorney appellee. tant for v. WHITED.
A01A0569. HUDSON Judge. Chief Blackburn, Hudson’s summary to Rоnald
Following grant carrier, contending Hudson appeals, uninsured motorist under the by reducing liability the trial court erred the limits of and reverse. policy UM zero. We
Summary judgment genuine is when there is no issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment (c). A as a matter of law. OCGA 9-11-56 de novo standard from a applies appeal grant review an evidence, and we view the and all reasonable con- judgment, it, in light clusions and inferences drawn from most favorable to thе nonmovant. *4 Gen. Ins.
Matjoulis Integon Corp.1 that, viewed, working So the evidence shows while for his Hudson was involved in an automobile sur- requiring Whited. Hudson suffered from herniated cervical disks $31,371, with lost gery. Hudson’s medical totaled at least expenses $33,475 $43,076. of at least Hudson has received in excess of wages Matjoulis Integon Corp., Gen. Ins.