GLORIA MELI, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1986-05-06
No. 84-2786
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ., HENDRY, J., concurs.
490 So. 2d 120 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1986) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A mother sued the Dade County School Board for injuries sustained by her child during physical education class. The court held that the statutory notice requirement under Florida's sovereign immunity statute is waivable through estoppel and that genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment.


Holding

The court held that the statutory notice requirement is waivable through estoppel when the sovereign's agents have actual knowledge of the injury and conduct themselves in a way that reasonably leads the claimant to believe formal notice is unnecessary. The court further held that genuine issues of fact regarding waiver existed, precluding summary judgment.


Headnotes

[1] The statutory notice requirement for suing a sovereign in tort is waivable.

[2] A sovereign may be estopped from asserting the lack of statutory notice if its agents have actual knowledge of the injury, conduct an investigation, and pursue a course o…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“when responsible agents or officials of a city have actual knowledge of the occurrence which causes injury and they pursue an investigation which reveals substantially the same information that the required notice would provide, and they thereafter follow a course of action which would reasonably lead a claimant to conclude that a formal notice would be unnecessary, then the filing of such a notice may be said to be waived”

Establishes the standard for waiving the statutory notice requirement through estoppel under sovereign immunity law

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On October 6, 1976, plaintiff's minor child Elena Meli was injured during physical education class. A week later, plaintiff's attorney sent written no…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
FERGUSON, Judge.

FERGUSON, Judge.

Plaintiff, a mother suing on behalf of her minor child, contends in this appeal that (1) the notice which must be given a sovereign, pursuant to section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1985), before the sovereign can be sued in tort is waivable, and (2) a genuine issue of fact was presented as to whether the statutory notice was waived precluding summary judgment. We agree with both contentions and reverse the judgment.

For the purposes of summary judgment the facts show that on October 6, 1976, the child, Elena Meli, was injured while participating in physical education class activities at school. A week later plaintiff’s attorney, Alan Baybick, sent written notice of the accident to the superintendent of schools, the county manager and the school board’s insurer.1 Bruce Moore, a claims representative for the school board’s insurer, sent Baybick a letter dated August 27, 1979, indicating that the claim was being investigated. Two days later Baybick called the insurer and was told by Moore that the investigation was complete and that the insurer was interested in settling the case.

Negotiations between Moore and Bay-bick resulted in a tentative settlement figure of $60,000 pending Baybick’s submission of documents to support the claimed $15,000 in medical expenses. On September 14, 1979, Baybick sent Moore a letter confirming the tentative settlement and promising that the medical documentation was being “assembled.’’ In March 1980, Baybick sent the medical treatment records and billings to Moore, along with a letter giving Moore thirty days to review the documents and respond. Moore backed out of the tentative settlement agreement after expiration of the three-year notice period. Baybick, nonetheless, gave the statutory notice to the Department of Insurance as a prerequisite to instituting a lawsuit.

Plaintiff says that she did not give timely notice to the Department of Insurance because Moore had, by his actions and apparent authority, caused her to believe that the case would be settled. Defendant answers that the notice statute must be strictly complied with and a failure to do so is fatal.

The controlling case is Rabinowitz v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 178 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1965), where the supreme court had before it the issue of whether a municipality could be estopped from asserting as a defense that the claimant failed to give the statutory notice where the municipality, having direct notice of claim, had conducted itself in a fashion such that the injured party would have believed that formal notice to the Department of Insurance would not be necessary. The holding of the court was that:

[W]hen responsible agents or officials of a city have actual knowledge of the occurrence which causes injury and they pursue an investigation which reveals substantially the same information that the required notice would provide, and they thereafter follow a course of action which would reasonably lead a claimant to conclude that a formal notice would be unnecessary, then the filing of such a notice may be said to be waived. If the claimant, as a result of such municipal conduct, in good faith fails to act, or acts thereon to his disadvantage, then an estoppel against the requirement of the notice may be said to arise.

Id. at 12-13. Subsequent cases have recognized that the section 768.28(6) notice is waivable. City of Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 474 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Duncan, 392 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1981); Hutchins v. Mills, 363 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1979).

In the cases relied upon by the defendant school board, Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1983) and Mrowczynski v. Vizenthal, 445 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), there was either no allegation or no evidence of waiver. The cases do not hold that notice cannot be waived. The facts before us present at least a genuine issue of fact on the question, which precluded a summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

HENDRY, J., concurs.

. Section 768.28(6) requires that statutory notice be given to the appropriate state agency and to the Florida Department of Insurance within three years after a claim accrues.

Dissent
NESBITT, Judge

NESBITT, Judge

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. Though I agree with the majority that a valid question of waiver as to the Dade County School Board is presented, section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1983) also mandates notice to the Department of Insurance, regardless of their interest in the outcome. Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1983). In the present case, it is conceded that the Department was not noticed within the required three-year period. Moreover, the record fails to demonstrate that any party acting on behalf of Dade County, the school board or the insurer had proper authority to waive notice on behalf of the Department of Insurance. Town of Miami Springs v. Lasseter, 60 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1952); Dukanauskas v. Metropolitan Dade County, 378 So. 2d 74, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Because of the plaintiffs failure to fully comply with section 768.28(6), I would affirm the judgment under review.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Solimando v. Int'l Med. Ctrs., 544 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
    …inued to hold that the notice requirements in the waiver of sovereign immunity statute are not jurisdictional and are subject to waiver. Bryant v. Duval County Hospital Authority, 502 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Meli v. Dade County School Board, 490 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1986); State ex rel. Manatee County v. Kruysman, 475 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1986); City of Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 474 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), r…
  • McSWAIN v. Evan Earl Dussia, II, M.D., 499 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
    …985). Since the notice requirement in section 768.28(6) is neither jurisdictional nor an essential element of the cause of action, failure to give the requisite notice may be waived by the hospital authority. [*871] Meli v. Dade County School Board, 490 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); City of Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 474 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1986). The summary judgment cannot be sustained, therefore, on the notion that this notice requirement is not waivable. The dec…
  • Ingersoll v. Warren Hoffman, D.D.S., 561 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …review, and evaluation of claims during the 90-day period. The remainder of the subsection places an affirmative duty on the insurer to conduct a review and evaluation of the claim within the ninety-day period. In Meli v. Dade County School Board, 490 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), we held, in construing section 768.28(6), Florida [*326] Statutes (1985), which requires similar notice before a negligence action may be instituted against the sovereign, that strict compliance with the notice of claim may be wa…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw