HILDA OTERO, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF HIALEAH, APPELLEE
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.
Hilda Otero appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim against the City of Hialeah for failure to comply with Florida's notice of claim statute. The court reversed, holding that Otero's notice was sufficiently detailed to enable the city to investigate the claim, even though the address identified a nearby church rather than the school where the incident occurred.
The court held that the notice was sufficient to comply with section 768.28(6)(a) because it provided adequate information to enable the City to investigate the claim, even though the address was not the precise location of the incident. The location need not be identified with minute detail if the notice furnishes city officials adequate information to make a thorough investigation.
[1] A notice of claim against a municipality is sufficient if it provides adequate information to enable officials to make a thorough investigation of the asserted claim, eve…
[2] A claim should not be denied due to strained constructions or requirements for minute detail when the notice, viewed in its entirety, furnishes sufficient information to…
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“a just claim, if one exists, should not be denied by the application of strained constructions and the imposition of requirements for minute detail where an examination of the entire notice reveals that it furnishes to the City officials adequate information within the framework of the statutory requirements in sufficient detail to enable them to make a thorough investigation of the asserted claim.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating notice sufficiency under the statute—substance and utility rather than technical precision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOtero provided notice of a claim to the City of Hialeah regarding an incident that occurred in front of Immaculate Conception School. The notice ident…
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.
SHEVIN, J.
Hilda Otero appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, City of Hialeah, for failure to comply with section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1997). We reverse.
Contrary to the City’s assertion, it is of no moment that the address on the notice, the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, was not the precise location of the incident; rather, the incident occurred in front of the Immaculate Conception School.
[A] just claim, if one exists, should not be denied by the application of strained constructions and the imposition of requirements for minute detail where an examination of the entire notice reveals that it furnishes to the City officials adequate information within the framework of the statutory requirements in sufficient detail to enable them to make a thorough investigation of the asserted claim.
Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So. 2d 589, 591-92 (Fla.1956) (notice identifying 480-foot area of sidewalk sufficiently specific to survive summary judgment). The notice Otero provided the City was sufficient to allow the City to investigate, request more information, and make informed decisions regarding her claim. In fact, the City did ask Otero for additional information, to which Otero responded unreservedly. “As long as the notice describes the occurrence with sufficient detail to enable the [agency] to investigate, it fulfills the statutory requirement.” Metropolitan Dade County v. Coats, 559 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 8d DCA), review denied, 569 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1990). See Magee; Robinson v. City of Miami, 177 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Monchek v. City of Miami Beach, 110 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Because the notice was sufficient to present Otero’s claim to the appropriate agency, Section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and allow the City to investigate, summary judgment on this basis was error. Accordingly we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fannye Wilson v. City OF Tampa, 209 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…t 1034 (quoting LaRiviere, 889 So. 2d at 974). The occurrence should be described so that the defendant may investigate the claim. Id. However, the lack of a precise address does not render the presuit notice defective. In Otero v. City of Hialeah, 731 So. 2d 116, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), for example, the Third District stated, “[I]t is of no moment that the address on the notice, the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, was not the precise location of the incident; rather, the incident occurred in front of…
Authorities Cited
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Northern Coats and Sadie Bell Coats, 559 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Magee v. City OF Jacksonville, 87 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1956)
- Robinson v. City OF Miami, 177 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Monchek v. City OF Miami Beach, 110 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)