Utah Supreme Court

Can governmental immunity notices be served at any attorney general office location? Shafer v. State of Utah Explained

2003 UT 44
No. 20020120
October 21, 2003
Reversed

Summary

Katie Shafer was injured while disembarking from a Heber Valley Railroad Authority train and sent a notice of claim to the attorney general’s child support division office rather than his personal office at the State Capitol. The trial court dismissed her lawsuit for failure to strictly comply with the Governmental Immunity Act’s notice requirements.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Katie Shafer sustained injuries while disembarking from a train operated by the Heber Valley Railroad Authority. Following the incident, she mailed a notice of claim by certified mail to the attorney general at 515 East 100 South, Salt Lake City—the address of the child support division rather than the attorney general’s personal office at the State Capitol Building. When the Railroad failed to respond, Shafer filed suit in district court. The Railroad moved to dismiss, arguing that Shafer had not strictly complied with the notice requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a notice of claim “directed and delivered” to the attorney general at one of his offices, but not his personal office, satisfied the requirements of Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-11(3)(b)(ii)(E). The statute mandated that notices against the State be delivered to the attorney general but did not specify where such notices must be directed when the recipient has multiple addresses.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court applied statutory construction principles, examining the Act’s purpose of affording public authorities opportunity for proper investigation and timely settlement while avoiding unnecessary litigation costs. The court held that delivery of a governmental immunity notice to the attorney general at any location where he holds himself out as having a presence satisfies both the Act’s purpose and strict compliance requirements. The nature of work performed at the specific office location was deemed immaterial—what mattered was that the attorney general maintained a presence there.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling governmental immunity claims. Attorneys need not identify the attorney general’s personal office location when serving notices of claim. Service at any official office where the attorney general maintains a presence will satisfy statutory requirements, including specialized division offices throughout the state.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Shafer v. State of Utah

Citation

2003 UT 44

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20020120

Date Decided

October 21, 2003

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A notice of claim served on the attorney general at any office where the attorney general maintains a presence satisfies the Governmental Immunity Act’s delivery requirement, even if not served at the attorney general’s personal office.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of statutory construction

Practice Tip

When serving governmental immunity notices on the attorney general, service at any official office location where the attorney general maintains a presence will satisfy statutory requirements.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Winter

    July 18, 2024

    Legislative amendments extending the statute of limitations for sodomy on a child apply retroactively when the original limitations period had not expired before each successive amendment took effect.
    • Due Process
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    In re L.M.

    August 1, 2013

    A non-custodial parent’s knowledge of ongoing domestic violence in his children’s home and failure to take protective action constitutes neglect sufficient to support termination of parental rights.
    • DCFS and Child Welfare
    • |
    • Termination of Parental Rights
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.