Must Utah practitioners serve notice of claim on the attorney general when suing state entities? E.S. v. University of Utah Medical Center Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently reinforced the critical importance of strict compliance with the Utah Governmental Immunity Act’s notice requirements in E.S. v. University of Utah Medical Center. This case serves as a stark reminder that even actual notice to a governmental entity cannot cure improper service under the Act’s jurisdictional requirements.

Background and Facts

Three sisters sued the University of Utah Medical Center, alleging negligent hiring and supervision of a nurse who had previously been convicted of child sodomy. The nurse later befriended the family and sexually abused the children over a decade after initially providing medical care in the NICU. Before filing suit, plaintiffs served a “Notice of Intent to Commence Action” on a Senior Vice President of the University, a Medical Center Administrator, and the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, believing they were complying with the Utah Medical Malpractice Act. The district court dismissed the case on proximate cause grounds, but on appeal, the University raised the jurisdictional issue of improper notice service.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether plaintiffs properly delivered their notice of claim under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. The Act requires that claims against “the state” must be delivered to “the attorney general,” and defines “state” to include universities and hospitals. A secondary issue was whether the governmental fault exception applied due to alleged defects in the Division’s database.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that compliance with the Immunity Act is jurisdictional and requires strict adherence. Since the University qualifies as “the state” under the Act, plaintiffs were required to serve notice on the attorney general or the attorney general’s authorized agent. Service on university administrators, even if they have actual notice, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court also rejected the governmental fault exception because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they consulted the database before their improper service or that database defects caused their delivery failure.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that Utah practitioners cannot rely on actual notice or logical assumptions about proper service when dealing with governmental entities. The subject matter jurisdiction requirement means that even if a case proceeds through discovery and motion practice, improper notice service can be raised at any time—including for the first time on appeal. Practitioners must carefully identify the correct recipient under Utah Code § 63G-7-401(3)(b)(ii) and document their compliance efforts, particularly when consulting the Division’s database for designated agents.