Day on Torts
After receiving a denial of claim for his claim against the State from the Division of Claims and Risk Management, the plaintiff had ninety days to file his notice of appeal, not mail his notice of appeal.
In Ferguson v. State of Tennessee, No. W2024-00831-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 2, 20225), the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident that he alleged was caused by a police officer for a university. The plaintiff filed a claim with the Tennessee Division of Claims and Risk Management (“DCRM”), and the DCRM denied the claim on November 2, 2023. The plaintiff then mailed a notice of appeal to the Claims Commission on January 31, 2024. The notice was filed with the claims commission on February 5, 2024, which was more than ninety days after the November 2 denial.
The State moved to dismiss the claim, asserting that it “had not been filed within the required 90-day period set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402(c).” The Claims Commission agreed and dismissed the claim, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-402(c) states that, when denying a claim, the DCRM must notify the claimant of their right to “file a claim with the Claims Commission within ninety (90) days of the date of the denial notice.” The Court of Appeals has held that “a claimant’s failure to file a claim…with the Claims Commission within the ninety days set out in section 9-8-402(c) is fatal to a claimant’s case.” (internal citation omitted).
The plaintiff presented three arguments as to why his notice of claim was timely. First, he asserted that he was required to file his notice of appeal within ninety days of when he received the notice of denial, rather than within ninety days of the date of the denial. The Court of Appeals explained that the statute unambiguously refers to the date of the notice, and that the “legislature could have added language to section 9-8-402(c) stating that a claimant must file a notice of appeal within 90 days of the claimant’s receipt of the notice, but it did not.” The Court therefore rejected this argument.
Second, the plaintiff argued that his notice of appeal was timely because it was mailed within ninety days of the denial notice. The Court rejected the assertion that the Rule of Civil Procedure applying to service applied here, and it stated that the plaintiff had “cited no relevant authority…for the proposition that post-marking a notice of appeal within the 90-day time period fulfills the filing requirement set out in section 9-8-402(c).”
Finally, the plaintiff argued that “because he received the denial notice via mail, he was granted an additional three days to file his appeal under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.05.” The Court wrote, though, that this rule “is applicable only where a party has a right or is required to act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period of time after the service of a notice or other paper on that party.” Here, the statute requires the action to be taken within ninety days of the date of the denial “rather than within 90 days after the service of that notice.” The Court stated that the “mere inclusion or reference to the word ‘notice’ in the statute does not trigger application of Rule 6.05 unless the statutory time begins to run from the service of that notice on a party.” Because the statute states that the time starts on the date of the denial, Rule 6.05 was inapplicable to extend the plaintiff’s timeframe here.
Because the plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal within ninety days of the notice of denial, dismissal was affirmed. This case is a reminder of the strict timelines associated with claims against the state, and the serious consequences that can result from failing to meet those timelines.
This opinion was published 2.5 months after oral arguments in this case.