2020 Georgia Code
Title 50 - State Government
Chapter 21 - Waiver of Sovereign Immunity as to Actions Ex Contractu; State Tort Claims
Article 2 - State Tort Claims
§ 50-21-26. Notice of Claim Against State; Time for Commencement of Action; Examination of Records to Facilitate Investigation of Claims; Confidential Nature of Documents and Information Furnished

1. No person, firm, or corporation having a tort claim against the state under this article shall bring any action against the state upon such claim without first giving notice of the claim as follows:
   1. Notice of a claim shall be given in writing within 12 months of the date the loss was discovered or should have been discovered; provided, however, that for tort claims and causes of action which accrued between January 1, 1991, and July 1, 1992, notice of claim shall be given in writing within 12 months after July 1, 1992;
   2. Notice of a claim shall be given in writing and shall be mailed by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, or delivered personally to and a receipt obtained from the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services.In addition, a copy shall be delivered personally to or mailed by first-class mail to the state government entity, the act or omissions of which are asserted as the basis of the claim.Each state government entity may designate an office or officer within that state government entity to whom a notice of claim is to be delivered or mailed;
   3. No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection;
   4. Any complaint filed pursuant to this article must have a copy of the notice of claim presented to the Department of Administrative Services together with the certified mail or statutory overnight delivery receipt or receipt for other delivery attached as exhibits. If failure to attach such exhibits to the complaint is not cured within 30 days after the state raises such issue by motion, then the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice; and
   5. A notice of claim under this Code section shall state, to the extent of the claimant's knowledge and belief and as may be practicable under the circumstances, the following:
      1. The name of the state government entity, the acts or omissions of which are asserted as the basis of the claim;
      2. The time of the transaction or occurrence out of which the loss arose;
      3. The place of the transaction or occurrence;
      4. The nature of the loss suffered;
      5. The amount of the loss claimed; and
      6. The acts or omissions which caused the loss.
2. No action may be commenced under this article following presentation of a notice of claim until either the Department of Administrative Services has denied the claim or more than 90 days have elapsed after the presentation of the notice of claim without action by the Department of Administrative Services, whichever occurs first.
3. The Department of Administrative Services shall have the authority to examine and copy any records of any state government entity to facilitate the investigation of a claim. Each state government entity shall make available to the Department of Administrative Services, incidental to any investigation of a claim, all such records notwithstanding any other provision of law which designates such records as confidential or which prohibits disclosure of such records; provided, however, that the Department of Administrative Services shall be bound by such provision of law and shall not make further disclosure of such records except as permitted by such provision of law.The Department of Administrative Services may enforce the authority granted under this subsection by subpoena which may be enforced, upon application by the department, by the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, in the same manner as subpoenas issued under Chapter 13 of this title, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act," may be enforced.
4. Any document or information gathered or prepared by the Department of Administrative Services in connection with the investigation undertaken as a result of the notice of claim shall be considered privileged and confidential and shall not be subject to discovery by any claimant in any proceeding under this article except as otherwise provided by law.

(Code 1981, §50-21-26, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1883, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L. 1998, p. 128, § 50; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3.)

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1992, "July 1, 1992" was substituted for "the effective date of this article" in two places in paragraph (a)(1).

Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1993, a comma was substituted for the period following the first occurrence of "July 1" in paragraph (a)(1).

Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2009, "that" was inserted following "however," in paragraph (a)(1).

- For annual survey article discussing trial practice and procedure, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 447 (2000). For annual survey of administrative law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2005). For annual survey of tort law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 385 (2006). For survey article on administrative law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2007). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 423 (2007). For survey article on administrative law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2008). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008). For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 211 (2014). For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 257 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Retroactivity.

- Notice and service provisions of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 are procedural laws that could be applied retroactively to authorize dismissal of a claim against the Department of Transportation when the plaintiff did not serve the Director of the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services or mail a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General. Henderson v. DOT, 267 Ga. 90, 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996).

- Chatham Area Transit Authority is a local authority and, therefore, the Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., does not apply to the authority. Holmes v. Chatham Area Transit Auth., 233 Ga. App. 42, 505 S.E.2d 225 (1998).

In a tort action brought by a passenger against a regional transportation authority, the reversal of the denial of the authority's motion for judgment on the pleadings was upheld because, by its terms, O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(d) permitted the tolling of the period of limitation only for claims against municipal corporations and it was not a municipal corporation. Foster v. Ga. Reg'l Transp. Auth., 297 Ga. 714, 777 S.E.2d 446 (2015).

- If a condition precedent to waiver of sovereign immunity was not satisfied, then the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and no valid action was pending to toll the running of the statute of limitations. Sylvester v. DOT, 252 Ga. App. 31, 555 S.E.2d 740 (2001).

- Pro se parent's ante litem notice to the state in a wrongful death case that stated that the amount of the loss suffered was the "monetary value of the decedent's life" was insufficient because the plain language of the ante litem statute required that a dollar amount be stated, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E), and the parent could have assigned a loss based on the parent's knowledge and belief. Dorn v. Ga. Dep't of Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities, 329 Ga. App. 384, 765 S.E.2d 385 (2014).

In the plaintiff's personal injury action under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20, et seq., against the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT), alleging that a DOT employee negligently caused a vehicle collision in which the plaintiff was injured, the DOT's motion to dismiss was improperly denied because the plaintiff's ante litem notice failed to state the amount of loss the plaintiff knew at the time of the notice; the plaintiff's statement that the plaintiff intended to claim the full amount of damages allowed by law failed to satisfy the definition of the amount of loss claimed as it referred to a cap on the amount the plaintiff might be allowed to recover without providing any information about the amount the plaintiff could claim to the jury. Georgia Department of Transportation v. King, 341 Ga. App. 102, 798 S.E.2d 492 (2017).

Prisoner who was injured when the prisoner slipped and fell during a work-release program failed to strictly comply with O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E)'s requirement that the prisoner's ante litem notice to the Georgia Department of Corrections specify the amount of the loss claimed because the notice did not provide a specific dollar amount or a range of losses. Farmer v. Dep't of Corr., 346 Ga. App. 387, 816 S.E.2d 376 (2018).

Trial court correctly dismissed the parents' claim for injuries incurred by their son while in juvenile detention based on their failure to demonstrate waiver of sovereign immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., because the parents failed to comply with GTCA by not stating an amount of loss; thus, the parents' ante litem notice was fatally deficient. Douglas v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 349 Ga. App. 10, 825 S.E.2d 395 (2019).

Georgia Supreme Court explained that the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., does not require that a claimant give notice of the entire loss, the complete loss, or the total loss; instead, the plain language requires notice of the amount of the loss claimed at that time, within the belief and knowledge of the claimant, as may be practicable under the circumstances. Douglas v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 349 Ga. App. 10, 825 S.E.2d 395 (2019).

- Trial court erred in denying the Department of Transportation's motion to dismiss because the driver did not establish that the driver delivered the ante litem notice in strict compliance with O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26, by making sure that notice was delivered to the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services and, thus, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. Department of Transportation v. Jones, 303 Ga. 604, 346 Ga. App. 886, 816 S.E.2d 679 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1645, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. 2019).

- Substantial compliance with the ante litem notice requirement is inadequate under the Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq. McGee v. State, 227 Ga. App. 107, 487 S.E.2d 671 (1997).

Since the plaintiff did not give notice of a claim to the Risk Management Division of the state Department of Administrative Services, as specifically set forth in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26, the plaintiff did not conform to the strict compliance requirements of that section, and the plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12(b)(1). Kim v. DOT, 235 Ga. App. 480, 510 S.E.2d 50 (1998).

Because an injured motorist sent ante litem notice of a negligence action against the Georgia Department of Transportation to the Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services, rather than to the Risk Management Division of that department, as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26, the notice did not meet the strict compliance requirements of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq.; the trial court properly granted the state's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Shelnutt v. Ga. DOT, 272 Ga. App. 109, 611 S.E.2d 762 (2005).

Trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss by the Georgia Department of Transportation as the ante litem notice sent by a guardian did not name the governmental entity whose acts or omissions were the basis for the injured party's claims; substantial compliance with the Georgia Tort Claims Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a), did not waive sovereign immunity and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Johnson v. E.A. Mann & Co., 273 Ga. App. 716, 616 S.E.2d 98 (2005).

Trial court did not err in granting the state transportation department's motion to dismiss on the ground that sovereign immunity barred the claimant's personal injury claim against the state because the claimant did not timely file a notice of claim as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a) and substantial compliance was not sufficient to meet that statute's requirement of proper notice; since the claimant did not timely file the notice of claim, the trial court was not permitted to consider the claim because the state only waived the state's sovereign immunity to the extent of providing a limited time to file a claim against the state, and since the claimant did not meet that requirement the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Williams v. Ga. DOT, 275 Ga. App. 88, 619 S.E.2d 763 (2005).

Although a plaintiff injured on Ports Authority property properly sent the plaintiff's notice of claim to the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services, the plaintiff did not personally deliver or mail a copy of the notice to the Authority as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5); actual notice by way of a letter to the Authority's claims adjuster was insufficient. Callaham v. Georgia Ports Authority, 337 Ga. App. 120, 786 S.E.2d 505 (2016).

- An ante litem notice of claim mailed within 12 months from the date of loss satisfied the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26; actual receipt of the notice by the state agency before the end of the 12-month period was not required. Norris v. DOT, 268 Ga. 192, 486 S.E.2d 826 (1997), rev'g DOT v. Norris, 222 Ga. App. 361, 474 S.E.2d 216 (1996), overruling Hardy v. Candler County, 214 Ga. App. 627, 448 S.E.2d 487 (1994).

- Before suit can be filed against the state, ante litem notice is an essential condition precedent. Horton v. Whitaker, 238 Ga. App. 312, 518 S.E.2d 712 (1999).

- In an action against the Georgia Department of Human Services, the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services and others, the trial court erred in calculating the 30-day cure period for filing an ante litem notice under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., and, thus, the amended complaint was untimely when the complaint was filed at least five days after the deadline. Department of Human Services v. Muff, 351 Ga. App. 713, 832 S.E.2d 866 (2019).

- Visitor's ante litem notice failed to strictly comply with the requirements that it identify the acts or omissions which caused the visitor's alleged loss and the nature of the loss, as the notice alleged that the visitor was injured when the visitor encountered water on the floor of the visitor's bathroom at the prison, while the complaint alleged that the visitor fell on uneven flooring, and the notice failed to specify the nature of the loss the visitor suffered, providing no information on the injuries the visitor sustained. Williams v. Wilcox State Prison, 341 Ga. App. 290, 799 S.E.2d 811 (2017).

Trial court did not err by dismissing the patient's medical malpractice claim against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia because the patient did not meet the procedural requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 as the medical records attached to the ante litem notice failed to indicate the place where the transaction occurred. By attaching a copy of the October 2016 x-ray report to the patient's first ante litem notice, the patient clearly knew of the x-ray report's existence, and as a practical matter, nothing in the record indicated, nor did the patient assert, that the patient was unaware of the location or the place where the patient underwent the October 2016 x-ray exam. Brown v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 355 Ga. App. 478, 844 S.E.2d 544 (2020).

- In a driver's tort action against the Department of Public Safety, the trial court erred in finding that the time for filing the ante litem notice under the Georgia Tort Claims Act pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(1) was subject to tolling under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99, although the tort at issue arose from a crime because the ante litem notice requirement was not a statute of limitations and it contained no provision for tolling. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Ragsdale, 308 Ga. 210, 839 S.E.2d 541 (2020).

- Trial court correctly found that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's negligence complaint because the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5) by failing to detail the type of injury or injuries allegedly suffered when the escalator malfunctioned while the plaintiff was attending a football game at a state-owned stadium. Bailey v. Ga. World Congress Ctr., 351 Ga. App. 629, 832 S.E.2d 446 (2019), cert. denied, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 262 (Ga. 2020).

- Injured party's suit against Georgia Department of Corrections was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the injured party failed to comply with the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(2); no certified mail receipt to the Georgia Department of Administrative Services was attached to the amended complaint and the receipt that was attached was an almost illegible customer copy of a United States Postal Service Express Mail label, which bore no signature and no information in the block designated for "delivery" and "signature of addressee or agent." Baskin v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 272 Ga. App. 355, 612 S.E.2d 565 (2005).

Failure to send an ante litem notice to the state within 12 months of the date plaintiff's loss was discovered or should have been discovered barred the plaintiff's action against the state. Howard v. Miller, 222 Ga. App. 868, 476 S.E.2d 636 (1996).

Personal injury plaintiff's notice of suit 20 months after the date of loss was held untimely under O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26; thus, summary judgment in favor of the university school board of regents was proper. Plaintiff could not rely on concealment per se absent evidence of fraud. Clark v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys., 250 Ga. App. 448, 552 S.E.2d 445 (2001).

Stone Mountain Memorial Association is a state department or agency for purposes of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX and, accordingly, a former inmate was required to file an ante litem notice in accordance with the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., for asserting the inmate's negligence claim; as the inmate failed to file such required notice, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Association pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(c) was proper. Gay v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 270 Ga. App. 17, 606 S.E.2d 53 (2004).

After a truck driver became involved in an altercation with a Georgia Port Authority employee during a delivery and was barred from the Savannah River terminal for 30 days, the driver's claim under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., that the driver suffered severe economic loss as a result of being barred from the terminal was procedurally barred because the driver failed to comply with the Act's notice provision, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26. Gambell v. Ga. Ports Auth., 276 Ga. App. 115, 622 S.E.2d 464 (2005).

Motorcycle driver failed to comply with ante-litem-notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a) as it was undisputed that the letter to the Department of Administrative Services was not mailed by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested, or delivered personally obtaining a receipt from the Risk Management Division of the Department of Administrative Services. DeFloria v. Walker, 317 Ga. App. 578, 732 S.E.2d 121 (2012).

Employee's tort claim for invasion of privacy and eavesdropping against the former supervisor at a state agency failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a) or O.C.G.A. § 50-21-35 by serving the employee's notice of claim with the proper state officials within 12 months and serving the complaint on an officer at the agency; dismissal was proper. Stephens v. Coan, 349 Ga. App. 147, 825 S.E.2d 525 (2019).

- O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(2) placed no limitations on the persons allowed to make delivery of a notice of claim against the state, and thus delivery of appellee injured party's notice by an overnight air express company meant that valid notice of claim was served on the state. Ga. Ports Auth. v. Harris, 274 Ga. 146, 549 S.E.2d 95 (2001).

Trial court properly dismissed a former inmate's action against the Georgia Department of Corrections because the inmate failed to strictly comply with O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a) because the inmate did not send a letter to that department, nor did the inmate provide the specifics as to the time, place, or nature of the inmate's injuries. Camp v. Coweta County, 271 Ga. App. 349, 609 S.E.2d 695 (2005), vacated in part, 280 Ga. App. 852, 635 S.E.2d 234 (2006).

Because: (1) a patron's personal injury claim filed with the claims advisory board (CAB) in no way complied with the ante litem requirements of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq.; (2) the patron's claim to the CAB was made under a separate statutory scheme set up under Article 4 of Title 28 dealing with the financial affairs of the General Assembly, covered under O.C.G.A. § 28-5-60 et seq.; and (3) prior to filing suit, no notice was given to the risk management division of the Department of Administrative Services or the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety, and so to the extent that the trial court denied the motion of the state to dismiss the patron's claim of $5,000 or less, the court erred, but the order denying the patron's claim of $5,000 or more was upheld. State of Ga. v. Haynes, 285 Ga. App. 637, 647 S.E.2d 331 (2007).

- Plaintiff's ante litem notice warning that the notice would be presumed to comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20, et seq., unless the state notified the plaintiff's attorney of any defect within 10 days of receipt was improper because the plaintiff pointed to no authority that permitted the plaintiff to unilaterally impose a duty on the state to respond to the plaintiff's letter or face a waiver of sovereign immunity; and the state could not waive or be estopped from invoking the statutory notice requirements. Silva v. Georgia Department of Transportation, 337 Ga. App. 116, 787 S.E.2d 247 (2016), cert. denied, No. S16C1640, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 818 (Ga. 2016).

Requirement of ante litem notice of claim under O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 was satisfied by the mailing of notices to the Department of Corrections and to the Department of Administrative Services, by certified mail, return receipt requested, within the time required for providing notice. Doe #102 v. Department of Cors., 268 Ga. 582, 492 S.E.2d 516 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1047, 118 S. Ct. 1363, 140 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1998).

Ante litem notice signed by plaintiff's attorney and physically delivered to the Department of Administrative Services by Federal Express on the anniversary of the date of the injury, with a copy sent by regular mail to the defendant, satisfied the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26. Georgia Ports Auth. v. Harris, 243 Ga. App. 508, 533 S.E.2d 404 (2000).

- Ante litem notice requirement contained in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a) was not void for vagueness since there was no dispute about when the time period began to run on the limitations period for filing against the state; thus, the trial court properly dismissed the claimant's personal injury claim against the state filed 14 months after the claimant was allegedly injured in a car accident because the date of the accident was the date the "loss was discovered or should have been discovered." Williams v. Ga. DOT, 275 Ga. App. 88, 619 S.E.2d 763 (2005).

- Plaintiff's negligence suit against a college was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's ante litem notice failed to set forth the amount of loss claimed, as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E), and prior correspondence sent to the college by the plaintiff with a demand amount could not be considered part of the ante litem notice because, although nothing in the plain language of § 50-21-26 required the ante litem notice to be provided in one document, the prior correspondence was not sent by certified mail as required by § 50-21-26(a)(2). Perdue v. Athens Tech. College, 283 Ga. App. 404, 641 S.E.2d 631 (2007).

State university student's ante litem notice regarding the student's injuries suffered in a university parking lot failed to strictly comply with O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E) because the notice did not state any amount of loss whatsoever; the statute required notice of the amount of the loss claimed at that time, within the belief and knowledge of the student. The student had actually incurred medical expenses of $4,180 at the time the student gave notice. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Myers, 295 Ga. 843, 764 S.E.2d 543 (2014).

In a motor vehicle collision between the plaintiff and a driver employed by the Georgia Department of Transportation, the trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with the ante litem notice provisions of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20, et seq., because the plaintiff did not specify the amount of loss the plaintiff claimed as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E); and the case law requiring the plaintiff to give some notice of the amount of the loss claimed, even if it did involve future damages, applied retroactively. Silva v. Georgia Department of Transportation, 337 Ga. App. 116, 787 S.E.2d 247 (2016), cert. denied, No. S16C1640, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 818 (Ga. 2016).

- Since the student's letter was inadequate notice and was not sent via approved means, the trial court correctly dismissed the suit for a claim for injuries received on a university campus. Dempsey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys., 256 Ga. App. 291, 568 S.E.2d 154 (2002).

- Ante litem notice sent by the husband of a breast cancer victim was not sufficient to give the designated state agencies adequate notice of his wrongful death claim because the notice was sent before his wife's death, and while it identified her claim for pain and suffering allegedly caused by the failure of a nurse employed by the state to identify or treat the wife's condition or to refer her to a physician for treatment, as well as the husband's claim for loss of consortium, it did not provide notice of a wrongful death claim. Williams v. Department of Human Resources, 234 Ga. App. 638, 507 S.E.2d 230 (1998). See Williams v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624, 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000), aff'd, 272 Ga. 624, 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000).

Ante litem notice stating that the estates of deceased persons intended "to file a lawsuit against the State of Georgia and the Department of Transportation whose conduct is believed to have proximately caused the deaths of [deceased persons]" was not insufficient on the grounds that the notice did not specify that the surviving children would be bringing a claim. Delson v. Georgia DOT, 245 Ga. App. 100, 537 S.E.2d 381 (2000).

In a spouse's wrongful death suit against the Georgia Department of Transportation, the trial court did not err by dismissing the spouse's wrongful death claim based on the loss of an unborn child on the basis that the spouse's ante litem notice was deficient as the spouse failed to provide any mention of the wrongful death claim arising from the loss of the unborn child in the notice. DOT v. Baldwin, 292 Ga. App. 816, 665 S.E.2d 898 (2008).

- Injured party's attempt to amend a renewed complaint to attach copies of the letters and purported receipts required by the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a), was untimely as the amendment was filed one day beyond the 30-day requirement. Baskin v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 272 Ga. App. 355, 612 S.E.2d 565 (2005).

- For purposes of a claim under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20, et seq., the plaintiff's amendment of the plaintiff's ante litem notice was untimely because the amendment was not filed within 12 months of the injury. Silva v. Georgia Department of Transportation, 337 Ga. App. 116, 787 S.E.2d 247 (2016), cert. denied, No. S16C1640, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 818 (Ga. 2016).

- Trial court's dismissal of an injured party's renewed complaint was proper because, even though dismissal under O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(4) was without prejudice, the injured party had renewed the action once and could not, under O.C.G.A. § 9-2-61(a), do so again. Baskin v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 272 Ga. App. 355, 612 S.E.2d 565 (2005).

Because the injured parties sent their ante litem notice to the commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services (DOAS) instead of the Risk Management Division of DOAS, as required by O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a), the trial court properly dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Welch v. Ga. DOT, 276 Ga. App. 664, 624 S.E.2d 177 (2005).

Plaintiff's tort action against the Georgia Ports Authority complied with the statute of limitations and ante litem notice statute, O.C.G.A. §§ 50-21-26(a)(4) and50-21-27(c), and the plaintiff's second action was proper under the renewal statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-2-61, but was dismissed for failure to timely attach the ante litem notice. The plaintiff's third action was improper because dismissal of the first action occurred outside the statute of limitations, so only one renewal was authorized. Burroughs v. Georgia Ports Authority, 339 Ga. App. 294, 793 S.E.2d 538 (2016).

- Trial court erred by dismissing a plaintiff's negligence complaint since the plaintiff complied with the plain language of the ante litem notice provision of the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA), O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26, even though, due to error on the plaintiff's part, the actual responsible agency was not provided with ante litem notice within the 12-month period; there was no evidence that the State of Georgia suffered any prejudice therefrom. Cummings v. Ga. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822, 653 S.E.2d 729 (2007).

- With regard to a trial court partially granting the Georgia Department of Transportation's motion to dismiss the complaint asserting damages from flooding brought by certain property owners, since the property owners did not know the precise times of the reportedly nearly constant flooding events at the property and given the contents of the notice, the continuing nature of the claims, and the inability to recall the specific times of the flooding incidents, the property owners complied with the plain language of the ante litem notice provisions. Under such circumstances, the trial court properly ruled that the property owners' claims were limited to damages for flooding occurring after a certain date since O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(1) required notice within 12 months of the date of the loss, or recovery was barred. Savage v. E. R. Snell Contr., Inc., 295 Ga. App. 319, 672 S.E.2d 1 (2008).

Patient sued the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia alleging the board failed to notify the patient that transfusions given at a college hospital might have exposed the patient to HIV. As the patient's ante-litem notice referenced the failure of state employees to take steps that would have led to an earlier detection of the patient's HIV infection, to the extent of the patient's knowledge and belief at the time the notice was given, the notice satisfied the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26.

Trial court did not err in denying the Department of Transportation's motion to dismiss the driver's action because the driver identified the portion of the highway on which the accident occurred to the extent that the driver knew it, the Department acknowledged that the Department could identify the locations of the storm drains and manholes along that part of the interstate, and the state investigated the claim after the ante litem notice was filed and made the driver an offer of settlement. Ga. DOT v. Griggs, 322 Ga. App. 519, 745 S.E.2d 749 (2013).

Student's ante litem notice stating that the amount of the student's full loss was unknown because the student was still incurring medical bills and did not know the full extent of the student's injury, met the requirement in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5)(E) that the student state the amount of the loss to the extent known. Myers v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 324 Ga. App. 685, 751 S.E.2d 490 (2013).

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the law firm in a legal malpractice action because the former client's termination of the law firm severed any potential liability for legal malpractice and the ante litem notice sent by the law firm on the former client's behalf satisfied the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26(a)(5) since the notice described the nature of the former client's losses and clearly stated the act which caused the losses. Bush v. Eichholz, 352 Ga. App. 465, 833 S.E.2d 280 (2019).

Cited in Mattox v. Bailey, 221 Ga. App. 546, 472 S.E.2d 130 (1996); Brooks v. Barry, 223 Ga. App. 648, 478 S.E.2d 616 (1996); Premo v. Georgia Ports Auth., 227 Ga. App. 27, 488 S.E.2d 106 (1997); Board of Regents v. Frost, 233 Ga. App. 692, 505 S.E.2d 236 (1998); Fedorov v. Bd. of Regents, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (S.D. Ga. 2002); Young v. Ga. Agric. Exposition Auth., 318 Ga. App. 244, 733 S.E.2d 529 (2012); Hartley v. Agnes Scott College, 295 Ga. 458, 759 S.E.2d 857 (2014); Ga. Dep't of Admin. Servs. v. McCoy, 340 Ga. App. 877, 798 S.E.2d 687 (2017).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Waiver of, or estoppel to assert, failure to give or defects in notice of claim against state or local political subdivision - modern status, 64 A.L.R.5th 519.