Doe Ex rel.Doe v. Independent School District No. I-89
780 P.2d 659
Okla.
1988
Check Treatment

*1 intentionally systematically under- property valued of owners within the same petitioners

class as equal violation of the

protection clause. Id. Court conclud- equal protection

ed that the violation could

not be by forcing petitioners remedied upward

seek an revision of the taxes of

other members of their class. Allegheny, present

Unlike appeal

does not systematic involve intentional and property

undervaluation of in violation of equal protection clause. The assessor

applied the same assessment ratio to all

properties. equal protection Because no occurred,

violation has the Allegheny deci-

sion does not appeal. affect this

HARGRAVE, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN WILSON, JJ., concur.

MEANS, Special Justice, sitting in KAUGER,

place J., concurs in

Supplement Opinion only.

KAUGER, J., recused.

SUMMERS, J., dissents. DOE,

Jane Natural Mother and Next

Friend of minor, Appellant,

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT I-89;

NO. Board of Education of Inde

pendent I-89; Floyd School District No. Donwerth; Betty Hill; Brody; Gene

Hugh Long; Hermes; Shirley Susan

Darrell; Hamm, and Delbert as mem

bers of the Board of Education of Inde pendent I-89; School District No. Rideout, Appellees.

No. 59965.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct.

Rehearing Denied Oct.

660 Rideout it was revealed that after prior for sexual crimes.

had convictions to the Appellant sent notice the claim Thereafter, 17, July school board be- correspondence on the claim was all attorney an investi- appellant’s tween gator the school board’s insurance informed company. The Jones, Flaugher by Terry Schuster & W. attorney not the claim that he could settle Flaugher, City, appellant. Oklahoma inci- completed report of the until he Nichols, Hayes Looney, & E. Johnson attorney dent. November On Mitchell, III, City, appel- Bay Oklahoma indicating he would file sent a letter lees. successfully the suit unless the was investigator again urged her resolved. HODGES, Justice. complete. On to wait negligence brought against A action was 3,1981, appellant’s attorney tele- December 1-89; Independent School District No. phoned informed who then Independent Board of Education School him the was denied. December On 1-89; Donwerth, Floyd Betty District No. appel- a letter received Hill, Hugh Long, Brody, Gene Susan confirming lant’s conversa- Hermes, Darrell, Shirley and Delbert lawsuit was not filed until June Hamm, Board; as of the and Jose Members 3, 1982. (appellees) Rideout under the Political Sub- Appellant first her action was claims that (Act).1 Tort division Claims Act The trial applicable not statute of time barred granted appellees’ court motion for summa- limitations. She contends that ry judgment, ruling that the six month interpreting court erred in 51 O.S.1981 expired before 156(C) provided and 157.2 §§ present- the suit was filed. Two issues First, ed for our consideration. whether arising “No under interpreting the trial erred this act shall be maintained unless valid applicable statute of limitations under the has been and the action Secondly, summary judg- Act. whether (6) commenced within months appellees after improper ment was because the claim notification of equitably the stat- political the clerk subdivision.” ute of limitations’ defense. We answer (Emphasis supplied). questions negative both in the and affirm trial court. provided: Section 157 (90) Rideout, ninety receiving “Within bus district, appellee driver for of a the clerk of abducted (a political year notify Doe old subdivision shall fourteen retarded female) writing approval forced her have sexual inter- claimant claim. A course. Rideout was convicted and sen- denial of the claim is denied if political ap- tenced for crime. Jane the natu- subdivision fails Sally (appellant), brought prove entirely ral mother of claim in its within seq., person may against O.S.1981 not initiate a suit the state 151 et now retitled The Act, O.S.Supp. Governmental Claims political Tort or a subdivision unless the claim §§ 151-171. part. The claim- been denied in whole attempts to ant and the state continue recently provide: Section 157 amended claim, however, settle a A. A claim denied if is deemed the state or do the date denial. not extend subdivision fails the claim (90) entirety ninety days, in its within (emphasis indicates 1988 Okla.Sess.Laws parties the interested have reached a settle- addition). period. expiration ment before the of that A days, successfully unless the interested unless the claim was resolved. parties Moreover, reached a settlement be- on December she re- expiration unequivocally denying ceived a letter fore person may against not initiate a suit claim and she still had four over months to employee or an file the suit. gave whose rise conduct to the Appellant relies on to substanti- *3 unless the has been claim denied in whole argument ate her that the of statute limita- part.” (Emphasis or in supplied). tions tolled 60 days appellees was when opinion In our recent v. Trent The requested additional information. Section Board County Commissioners John 156(C)provided of of (Okla.1988), County, ston 755 P.2d 615 we time, place, “Failure to state either the purpose observed apparent of the 90 circumstances and compensa- amount of day period for a subdivision to tion demanded shall not invalidate the deny either or a claim for the is notice declines or claimant re- prevent politi benefit of and to fuses furnish such to within information cal from needlessly delaying days after demand filing days. of a claim In political subdivision.” court, affirming the district we ruled § Appellant erroneously construes provided for an automatic denial of provide tolling statute to for a of the stat- after 90 it had if not been 156(C) ute of limitations. con- approved or settled at an earlier date. Fur adequacy cerns the of thermore, distinguished we v. Whitley Ool- political Trent, subdivision. 755 P.2d at ogah Rogers S.D. Cty, 741 P.2d 455 1-4 of undisputed appellant 615. It is com- (Okla.1987), wherein a subdivision plied the notice with of this sec- promise continued to to settle the remain der of a claim until up, such time suit as the filed, was which was well the six find appellant’s We no merit in ar Trent, month time In gument limit. we noted there appellees’ request for addi partial was not a settlement or approval of tional information somehow extended the promise the claim nor was there a settle. Therefore, to statute days. of limitations 60 we would affirm the holding district court’s case, In present appellant contends appellant comply failed to with the she considered the claim settled inasmuch statute Appellant’s of limitations. as the investigator constantly maintained was barred on time that there was no need to file the lawsuit oper months after claim was denied because the be settled when ation under of law complete. Further- more, Next, appellant she contends that the of limi- attacks the trial court’s tations days by appel- grant was tolled summary judgment. of She con- request lees’ for additional information. still tends there existed a substantial con- troversy equitable of fact as to of the issue apparent From it the record is estoppel. Appellant maintains reasonable appellant’s Ap- not a settlement of claim. persons might differ as to the conclusions pellant relies on fact that undisputed to be drawn from the facts. urged tor to file her her not claim until his argument again allega- Her her stems from accept ap- was finished. We cannot urged tion the of the claim her pellant’s position. Appellees under- never report. wait until finished his In negotiations took appellant nor did short, appellees estopped claims she they liability they ever for the admit time bar because simply investigating the incident. appellant’s attorney delay they induced appellant seriously Had considered the in filing her lawsuit. settled, she would not have sent a 24, 1981, indicating Stillwater, letter City on November she 732 P.2d Jarvis (Okla.1987), would file the within the week stated: suit next 472-73 we appellees. Any reliance part question “A fact as to whether defen- unequivocally interposing part appellant de is dant reject generally appellee a time bar raised when sent defense of nounced allegations by plaintiffs Appellant defen- still over four ing the claim. (a) had made some assurance dant We cannot hold months claim. reasonably calcu- appel appellees’ actions were the cause plaintiff into a sense of lated to lull the in the of her action lant’s be beyond the delay action yond statutory period. (b) by express statutory period, or correctly find the We district conjunc- repeated liability admission sum, granted summary judgment. we payment, settle- promises tion with allege suffi- appellant find failed to facts (c) performance, ment or equitable invoke the doctrine of cient to conduct or fraudulent estoppel and also failed file her some affirmative act of concealment expired. before the statute *4 suspicion preclude inquiry, exclude and appel- judgment for The district court’s timely induces one to refrain from which affirmed. lees is (Footnotes bringing omit- an action.” ted). DOOLIN, V.C.J., C.J., HARGRAVE, factually The Jarvis case is similar and SIMMS, JJ., and LAVENDER and disposition the present the case. controls concur. city Jarvis relied on letter sent OPALA, WILSON, ALMA KAUGER and requesting additional information also JJ., SUMMERS, dissent. investigation, mentioning an the results of which would be made available to Jarvis. OPALA, Justice, with whom argued led to Jarvis the letter him believe KAUGER, joins, dissenting. Justice correspondence city from further would opinion I dissent from the court’s for the forthcoming, be and this reliance induced expressed by reasons me Trent v. Board delay We held him action. Com’rs, County [Okl. had failed to make out a case for Jarvis J., (Opala, dissenting) Whitley 1988] letter not fall estoppel because the did into Oologah Rogers Cty., 741 P.2d S.D. I-4 of sup- any of the three variations that would J., concurring). (Opala, 455 [Okl.1987] equitable port estoppel argument. an Fur- thermore, stated the Political we Subdivi- WILSON, Justice, dissenting. ALMA narrowly Tort Act structures sion Claims bringing tort claim the method majority opinion the ap- The holds that against municipality. pellees equitably estopped were not from asserting statute of limitations defense. Upon reviewing the record ques- I there is fact Because believe that there is no evidence instant case we find be resolved a fact- tion which should argument. support estoppel finder, summary judgment improper. equitable to invoke the doctrine of order respectfully dissent. therefore estoppel there be some assurance of must brought negotiations reasonably negligence calcu In a under the Act,1 of Political Subdivision Tort Claims lated to lull a into a sense summary granted the statu finding months’ Ap 732 P.2d at 472. defendants tory O.S.1981, in 51 pellees liability for the never admitted expired it. had before the suit was or undertook to settle addition, claims record does not reflect filed. encouraged not to file a law- conduct on that he was fraudulent seq., retitled Gov- 151-171. §§ et now Act, O.S.Supp.1987, ernmental Tort Claims demeanor, actions, spe- lege suit by operation that the claim was denied requests company’s cific of the insurance ninety days law on October investigator and therefore the insurance after the made.2 On November company should barred plaintiff’s attorney be sent the inves- by tigator stating the statute of limitations as defense a letter that he intended to equitable estoppel. reason file suit “within the next week successfully matter can be resolved.” Two during hours, days later, plaintiff’s attorney received a fourteen-year-old retarded fe- phone investigator telling call male, driver, was taken her school bus him, lawsuit, your got file “Don’t I’ve still Rideout, to a motel where he forced do, go a little bit of let me sexual intercourse. Subse- complete my investigation. ahead and You quently, Rideout convicted and sen- your don’t need lawsuit.” On De- plaintiff alleged tenced his crime. The 3, 1981, plaintiff’s attorney cember had a previous police that Rideout had a record telephone conversation prior employ- which revealed that to his tor and told that the claim been district, ment with defendant school position company separate had been arrested on sixteen occa- was that there would be another insurance sions, that he had been convicted four company pay that would the claim. At the separate including attempted crimes crimi- attorney’s request, sent a age nal assault a female of the of thir- confirming telephone letter conversa- teen, and past charges that six was sent December *5 against him involved sexual crimes or at- 1981, 11, and received December 1981. On tempted sexual crimes on females under allege the defendants the eighteen. age the ran,3 petition statute of limitations and the July 17, 1981, plaintiffs the attorney 3, was filed on June 1982. plaintiff's sent the school board of The relevant of the Political early August, In claim. he was contacted Subdivision Tort Claims Act are in 51 found by investigator the for the school board’s 157, O.S.1981, 156(C). Section 157 § § company. In deposition insurance a of the provides politi- that claim is denied if the plaintiff’s by defendants, attorney the the approve cal subdivision fails to claim the attorney testified that he and the days within ninety receipt of the claim. phone tor met and talked the on several Because procedural, such time limit is December, August through occasions from limitation, like other statutes the time 1981, deposition. which describes the See may by estoppel. bar extended be He that stated the told him Stillwater, City 470, Jarvis v. 732 P.2d lawsuit, that there was need to no (Okla.1987). 473 and that the matter could not be settled investigation 156(C) provides until he finished his that “[n]o his report. any arising submitted The defendants al- shall cause under this act O.S.1981, 1985; 228, 5, Okla.Sess.Laws, provided: 2. § 51 157 and 1984 ch. § 1, July eff. (90) ninety receiving Within filing after the political of a the clerk of the 156(C) provided pertinent § notify subdivision shall the claimant in writ- part: ing approval of the or denial of claim. the A political arising is denied the if subdivision No action under this act entirety claim in fails the its with- shall be maintained unless valid notice has (90) ninety days, par- unless the interested been and the is with- commenced (6) expi- ties have reached a settlement before the in six months after notification of person by political ration of that not initi- of the the the subdi- clerk of against ate a suit vision. employee gave subsequently by conduct rise to the has been whose Section 156 amended 226, 1, Okla.Sess.Laws, 8, claim has denied in § the been 1984 1985; ch. eff. Oct. Okla.Sess.Laws, part. opera- or in ch. § whole 1985 1985, Okla.Sess.Laws, 1, subsequently Section 157 has amended tive Oct. 247, ch. been 1986 226, 9, 23, 1, Okla.Sess.Laws, July operative 1984 ch. eff. Oct. Therefore, alleged by plain- the if the facts the action is com- be maintained unless ... six months notifica- concerning the actions defen- menced within tiff clerk of tion of the claim the legally of denial investigator are sufficient dant’s has This Court subdivision.” asserting the estop the defendant unless a claim previously held that defense, as of limitations summa- during day peri- approved ninety been ry judgment should been denied. od, end of is deemed denied at the the claim alleged persuasive I find facts which days. v. Black- City Neal attorney told plaintiff’s are that the well, (Okla.1983). Where 670 P.2d file a no need to lawsuit deemed the six-month a claim is investigator, he contacted when of section is activated. limitation settled that the matter could not be Independent Pub. Dist. Lucas v. School report, had finished (Okla.1983). P.2d 1131 But No. leading attorney to plaintiff’s believe that a where the facts show made as soon settlement would be delay the into a sense of lulled fact, complete. as the statutory lawsuit company the insurance never denied that period, estopped from the defendant will be employ- for its board was liable interposing the defense of a time Jar- bar. conduct, is no ee’s tortious “that there vis, equita- 732 P.2d at 471. “One cannot coverage policy under their for this loss.” bly adversary into a false sense of lull an 3, 1981, telephone In his conver- December thereby security, subjecting his claim investigator, sation with the insurance limitations, and then heard to bar of be attorney plaintiff’s was led to believe that plead very as a defense to company pay another insurance Whitley Oologan action.” Ind. School claim. Dist., (Okla.1987). majority opinion which the this Court is whether The issue before dispositive, finds to be Court plaintiff alleges stated actions which the concerning urging question a fact whether a taken the defendants legally interposing not to file a lawsuit were defendant is plaintiff’s to lull the sufficient raised defense a time bar is *6 security into sense that the a false of so plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants using defendants made: The statute of limitations as a defense. (a) negoti- some assurance of settlement summary judg- on a motion reasonably ations calculated to lull the plaintiff’s ment found that the claim was plaintiff into a sense and de- of by operation law on denied of October lay statutory period, or of and that the six months’ statute (b) repeated express and of admission 15, 1982, ran on and that liability promises conjunction in of with plaintiff by the therefore the was barred payment, performance, settlement or At the time of the statute of limitations. (c) misleading fraudulent or provided Rule hearing, District Court conduct or some affirmative act of con- suspicion pre- cealment to exclude and may judgment in his party move inquiry, clude which induces one re- ground depositions, favor on the timely bring frain from an action. pleadings, stipulations, admissions P.2d, at 472-473. interrogatories demands answers to The case at bar is a scenario of classic file, admit, affidavits, and exhibits voluntary enlargement ninety-day subsequently his filed with motion re- filed leave of court show that any quired a denial of the claim whole or controversy as to no substantial part before suit could be instituted. The material fact. 30, 1984, replaced by 2, App., order of eff. Nov. ch. Rules for District Oct. 1, 1984). (subsequently Oklahoma withdrawn Courts of investigator request of the insurance plaintiff not file suit In the Matter of INCOME TAX completed prompt-

tion not PROTEST FLINT OF required attorney’s plaintiffs ed but RESOURCES. advising November FLINT RESOURCES requesting file suit within a week COMPANY, Appellant, response of acceptance plain- denial or Clearly tiffs offer of settlement. at that date, recog- both and defendants Oklahoma, STATE of ex rel. OKLA- receipt

nized the as undenied. On COMMISSION, HOMA TAX letter defendants’ re- Appellee. quested response. additional time for a No. 70024. facts, Under these defendants not now deny authority under the Neal Lu- Supreme Court of Oklahoma. ninety-day cas that the time of “deemed Jan. 1989. enlarged by request. denial” was its own Rehearing Sept. Denied alleged facts which if proven would show actions

insurance in-

ducing timely him from bringing the law- petition

suit. The was filed within six

months of December which was date letter was sent which denied company’s

the insurance liability. The ac-

tion would be timely. Whitley, therefore at I would find that

alleged acts of the defendants’ insurance

investigator were sufficient to assert a fact

question which would still be in controver-

sy summary judgment and therefore

improper. would reverse the

the trial court and remand proceedings.

further

SUMMERS, Justice, dissenting.

Plaintiff filed her action six months to day from the date she was first notified

that her claim had been denied de-

fendant, 156(C). satisfying 51 O.S.1981 expressed

therefore dissent for reasons

in my opinion in dissenting Trent Board County Commissioners Johnston Co., (Okla.1988).

KAUGER, J., joins in these views.