Utah Court of Appeals
When is a notice of claim under Utah's Governmental Immunity Act considered delivered? Harward v. Utah County Explained
Summary
Harward mailed notices of claim to governmental defendants on June 6, 1996, but filed his lawsuit on September 5, 1997. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the lawsuit was filed one day after the one-year statute of limitations expired, which ran from the deemed denial date ninety days after delivery.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Harward v. Utah County provided crucial guidance on timing requirements under Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act, specifically addressing when notices of claim are deemed “delivered” to governmental entities.
Background and Facts: In 1996, Ken Ray Harward sought to deliver notices of claim to Utah County and several cities under the Governmental Immunity Act. He mailed the notices via express mail service on June 6, 1996, as evidenced by the date entered in the “postal use only” section of the envelopes. When defendants neither approved nor denied his claims within ninety days, they were deemed denied on September 4, 1996. Harward filed his lawsuit on September 5, 1997—one day after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether Utah Code section 63-37-1 controls the determination of when a notice of claim is “delivered” under the Governmental Immunity Act, particularly when using United States mail service rather than hand delivery.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment, ruling that section 63-37-1 applies to determine delivery dates under the Governmental Immunity Act. The court relied on Litster v. Utah Valley Community College, which imported section 63-37-1 into the Governmental Immunity Act framework. The court found that “file” and “deliver” are practically synonymous in this context, both meaning to deliver a document for placement into the official record. Therefore, Harward’s notices were delivered on June 6, 1996—the postal service acceptance date—making his September 5, 1997 lawsuit untimely.
Practice Implications: This decision establishes that practitioners must carefully track postal service acceptance dates when filing notices of claim under the Governmental Immunity Act. The delivery date begins the ninety-day period for governmental response, and if denied (or deemed denied), triggers the one-year statute of limitations for filing suit. Courts will not accept actual receipt dates or subjective delivery intentions as alternatives to the objective postal service acceptance date.
Case Details
Case Name
Harward v. Utah County
Citation
2000 UT App 222
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 990707-CA
Date Decided
July 13, 2000
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Utah Code section 63-37-1 applies to determine the delivery date of notices of claim under the Governmental Immunity Act, with delivery occurring on the date shown by postal service acceptance rather than actual receipt by the governmental entity.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal conclusions, with no deference given to the trial court’s legal conclusions
Practice Tip
When calculating deadlines under the Governmental Immunity Act, use the postal service acceptance date (shown in the ‘postal use only’ section) as the delivery date, not the date of actual receipt by the governmental entity.
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
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.