*1 reasons, we reverse the foregoing For the to Mohave
judgment remand the case and new
County Superior Court for a opinion.
consistent with this SHELLEY, JJ., con-
CONTRERAS
cur. DASSINGER, Sr., Shirley Das- wife,
singer, Appellants, husband Oden,
R. K. ODEN Jane Doe husband wife; Sanchez, J. C. and Jane Doe
Sanchez, wife; husband and State of
Arizona;
Safety, Agency of the State Arizo-
na, Appellees.
No. 1 CA-CIV 4045. Arizona, Appeals
Court of
Division
Department A.
Dec.
on a set of non-uniform inter- defendants rogatories, requests for admission and re- quests response for production. The 17, pertaining filed on December 1975 and the injury following: it contained the 18, By plain- R.3 July letter dated filed tiffs a claim in accordance 12-821. A.R.S. § ADMITTED_ X DENIED denied, 1.5 R.3 is state: AH your a. facts denial is Wiehn, Harry Craig, E. and John L. based. Phoenix, appellants. 18, July Letter of fails constitute Jones, Sanders, Teilborg, Haga, Parks & applicable a ‘claim’ in accordance with Woods, Stephenson, by Terrence P. Arizona law. Phoenix, Gemmill, appellees.
John C. specifically b. and in detail plaintiffs’ exact letter dated OPINION 18, prevents July 1975 which be- DONOFRIO, Judge. ing ‘a Appellants filed a action negligence 12-821.’ § against appellees alleging injuries and dam 18, not state The letter of 1975 does ages arising arrest out of an situation. might for which this matter amount complaint alleged warnings despite compromised. appellant multiple Dassinger’s about 9, 1977, May just years over two after On sclerosis Officer Oden handcuffed him be incident, motion defendants inju thereby causing physical hind his back on basis that ry. controversy below on Department with the claim letter filed appellants complied whether with the claim deficient in that failed Safety Public requirements Fulfilling of A.R.S. 12-821. a to settle for fixed to include an offer jurisdictional pre these as State v. required amount requisite negligence to the institution of a 463, (1975). The Stone, action the State. State granted judg- entered the motion and 339, Ariz. 6, appeal fol- on 1977. This ment June 1975, July 18, after On fourteen months lowed. incident, appellant through the arrest coun- 12-821 states: A.R.S. § Department sel filed a claim letter with the or for having Persons claims on contract incident, detailing Safety dis- state, which have negligence against the cussing injuries and en- nature of disallowed, may on the terms and copies reports. closing of medical bills and article, bring in this conditions set forth September Department On 1975 the pros- against the state and action thereon Wakefield, through Depart- Randy H. judgment. to final ecute advisor, legal replied stating “we ment’s are, claim; this court held In v. Brooks find merit in his state an amount rejecting his This letter valid claim had to claim.” damages suffered. for the complaint was followed claimant information, claim letter is answered on Without October 1975. Defendants meaning of the de- a “claim” within October 1975 and asserted as one prerequisites fense the lack of because court’s The claim not satisfied. plaintiffs’ to file claim for suit are “failure $1,300 for plaintiffs itemized in accordance with A.R.S. Dur- 12-821.” $1,800 medical for future expenses, ing discovery, the course of served medical construed this stat However, The federal courts have expenses mileage. $200 includes a the letter also notified the claim which required plaintiff wages had loss of suffered Bialowas v. request a sum certain. unspecified and that had also he (3rd 443 F.2d anguish, pain, substantial mental suffered Avril v. United *3 an and inconvenience which resulted in un- States, Caton v. United Cir. claim, specified damages. The amount of (9th 1974). the said in As court 635 Cir. appear not to meet the does Avril, contemplates, in term ‘claim’ “[t]he Brooks’ criteria. There is no sum certain or usage, payment general demand in the contained letter which relief, and, for some it is a claim unless been settle would have satisfied to for. at 1091. thing, claim all.” 461 F.2d is no at by appellant The issue raised is first including a sum certain has Unless a claim granting in sum- whether the court erred filed, requirement jurisdictional the been holding mary on the judgment based against the Unit filing of an action the argues that the Appellant Brooks. first the com ed has been met and States not adequate claim letter he filed sufficed as an plaint The cases also must dismissed. However, above, explained claim letter. filing hold of a claim that since the damages pain sought wages, for loss of the institu prerequisite is a to suffering, anguish and mental requirement tion the cannot be of suit specified. which no was It there- States, ; supra waived. Bialowas v. United fore did not meet the Brooks’ criteria. F.Supp. Driggers v. United 309 1377 The more serious is that de- (D.S.C.1970); v. Muldez United 326 spite the deficiencies in the claim letter the (E.D.Va.1971). F.Supp. 692 Safety’s disallowance princi that the same We believe any of it regard. cured that As in a action in Arizona. ples apply State They note that Brooks the letter not Brooks, the of a noted in v. treated and was claim jurisdictional prerequisite is a never therefore disallowed. there- A against the the State. suit fore, squarely present does not cover the jurisdiction Court has They case. compromisable reason that the subject against of suit the State of matter requirement sum the is for benefit of the previous has not allow it Arizona where there been State to to determine whether a claim ly should be allowed or disallowed. claim and disallowance the State is able to disallow claim even the lack is the rule that of thereof. It for, prayed without a sum then subject can jurisdiction over matter the complain not later be that heard to any parties raised cannot waive at claim insufficient. subject the court have requirement confer matter or consent validity,
While this bears some subject jurisdiction upon the court. matter believe that must fail. In Brooks we Estate, 91, 194 P. re 22 Ariz. 333 requirement noted that an amount In Baxter’s of prayed (1921); Kelly Kelly, Ariz.App. for was also found under the Feder- v. Act, 2675(a):
al
Tort Claims
U.S.C.
(1975).
P.2d
were thus free
Defendants
question of the
at
time to raise the
An
shall
not be instituted
of
claim.
claim
the United States
has
presented
agency,
to a federal
challenge
next
Appellants
con
money
loss
damages
injury
or
of
vague
stitutionality of
12-821 on
property
personal
or
injury or death
grounds.
since
They
ness
assert
negligent
wrongful
or
act
caused
face and
word “claim”
unclear
employee
govern-
or
of
omission
an
qualified
since
court
in Brooks
acting
scope
ment while
within the
of his
way
in a
which ordi
agency
meaning of
word
authority, unless such federal
has
disposition
nary persons
anticipate
not
the stat-
made final
of the claim.
would
unconstitutionally
vague.
question
defendants.
This
was never
court,
the fact that a
presented
statute has been
trial
who never had
judicially
to the
interpreted
applied
grant
to a
opportunity
set of facts
consider whether to
generally provides
summary judgment
sufficient notice to
on be-
motion for
process
due
precludes
half of
or on
behalf
all
an attack
vagueness.
on the
party defending against
basis
If a
Pickett,
P.2d 16
motion for
does
present
construction of the word
particular
“claim” in
issue to the trial
Brooks as requiring
issue,
present
the inclusion of a sum and waits
until
certain constitutes sufficient notice and the
it is too
v. First National Bank
late. Bible
Rawlins,
vagueness
therefore does not fall on
grounds.
Kabinto,
(1973), and
States v.
1972).
F.2d 1087
has
issue
*4
Appellants’
third
is that
for purposes
appeal.
thus been waived
by failing
to raise the
of the
Affirmed.
claim for failure to state a sum certain and
by denying
meritless,
the claim is
WREN,
J., concurring.
P.
estopped
raising
from
the defense that no
valid claim
exists.
ROSENBLATT, Judge,* specially concur-
rule is that estoppel
operate
will not
ring.
the State or
agencies. Kerby
v. State ex
respects
While I
in all
concur
Frohmiller,
rel.
officers who claim were sued in their capacity.
individual The motion for sum
mary judgment was filed behalf of all response, In their argue judgment,
did that the if entered
at all could be entered for the State was entered on behalf of all * Rosenblatt, Supreme NOTE: The Paul order of Honorable G. Court of the State Judge January Yavapai County, Court Arizona participated in this decision authorized