Short answer: In E.S. v. University of Utah Medical Center, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of an injury lawsuit against a state hospital because the notice of claim went to university and hospital officials instead of the Utah Attorney General. The court held that the delivery rule demands strict compliance, that the defect deprived the courts of jurisdiction, and that the hospital’s actual awareness of the claim did not fix it.
Most people have never heard of a notice of claim. Anyone with a claim against a Utah city, county, school district, state agency or public hospital needs one, and this case shows how unforgiving the delivery rules can be.
What Happened
The decision is E.S. v. University of Utah Medical Center, 2024 UT App 57, filed April 18, 2024.
Three sisters sued the University of Utah’s medical center. They alleged it hired a nurse for its newborn intensive care unit without a reasonable background check, missing a prior conviction for a sex offense against a child. The nurse cared for two of the girls as infants, later befriended the family, and years afterward abused all three.
Before suing, the family’s lawyer sent a “Notice of Intent to Commence Action” by certified mail. It was written as a notice under the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act, which separately requires 90 days’ notice before a malpractice suit (Utah Code 78B-3-412). It went to a senior vice president of the university, an administrator at the medical center, and the state licensing division.
The Attorney General’s office soon appeared to defend the hospital. The trial court then dismissed the case on a different ground, finding the family could not prove the hospital’s conduct was a legal cause of abuse that happened years later.
The Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal
While the appeal was pending, the university argued for the first time that the family never delivered a proper notice of claim under the Governmental Immunity Act. Because compliance with that Act is treated as a condition of the court’s power to hear the case, the issue could be raised at any stage, even on appeal.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the university and affirmed the dismissal on that basis instead, without reaching the family’s other arguments.
What the Court Held
The notice went to the wrong place. The Act requires the notice to be delivered to a specific office depending on the type of government entity. For a claim against the state, that is the Attorney General. The Act’s definition of “state” includes a state university or hospital. The family’s notice may have contained the right facts, but it was not delivered to the Attorney General or the Attorney General’s designated agent.
Strict compliance is required. The court repeated the Utah Supreme Court’s warning that it has “repeatedly denied recourse to parties that have even slightly diverged from the exactness required by the Immunity Act.” It noted earlier cases that failed for similar reasons, including a notice sent to county commissioners and an insurer rather than the county clerk, and one sent to a transit authority’s claims adjuster.
Actual notice does not cure it. The notice reached an assistant attorney general, and that office defended the case throughout. The court acknowledged this might look like “the product of a technicality,” but said it was “not free to disregard the plain terms of the controlling statute or the settled cases interpreting it.”
The database exception was not proven. Every government entity must file a statement with the state’s Division of Corporations and Commercial Code naming who receives notices of claim. The family’s lawyer described searching that database and finding no clear entry for the university or the Attorney General. The court called that “some cause for concern,” but the search was done 18 months after the notice was sent. To use the exception, a claimant must show the database problem actually caused the misdelivery, which requires proof of when the claimant checked it.
The Rules Today
The notice of claim statute, Utah Code 63G-7-401, was most recently amended in 2025, after this decision. In its current form, effective July 1, 2025:
- Content. The notice must state the facts briefly, the nature of the claim, and the damages known so far, and it must be signed by the claimant or the claimant’s agent, attorney, parent or guardian (401(4)(a)-(b)).
- Recipient. It goes to the office listed for that type of entity: the city or town clerk, the county clerk, a school district’s superintendent or business administrator, a special district’s presiding officer or board clerk, the Attorney General for the state, or the agent the entity designated (401(4)(b)(ii)).
- Delivery. It may be hand delivered or mailed to the physical address in the entity’s filed statement, or emailed to the email address listed there. If emailed, a copy must go at the same time to the attorney who represents the entity (401(4)(c)-(d)).
- Database errors. An entity may not challenge a notice as misdirected if the error was caused by the entity’s failure to file or update its statement and the entity had actual notice of the claim (401(8)).
- Narrow safety valves. The current statute also bars timeliness challenges in two narrow situations: a claimant who filed on time with the wrong entity in good faith and then refiles correctly within 30 days after the deadline, meeting specific conditions; and a notice delivered to an elected official or executive officer of the correct entity with a copy sent to its attorney, or where the entity does not point out the defect within 60 days (401(10)).
These provisions are detailed, and each has conditions. They are no substitute for getting the notice to the right office the first time. The court in E.S. noted that the family did not argue that the other exceptions in the earlier version of the statute applied, so it did not address them.
The Deadlines Around the Notice
A claim is barred unless the notice of claim is filed “within one year after the claim arises” (Utah Code 63G-7-402). A lawsuit cannot be filed until 60 days after the notice is filed, and generally must be filed within two years after the claim arises (Utah Code 63G-7-403). Those are much shorter than the four years that apply to most injury claims against private parties; see the Utah personal injury statute of limitations.
What This Means for an Injured Person
- Find out early whether a government entity is involved. Claims against public hospitals, state universities, transit districts, school districts, and cities over property they own all run through the Act.
- Identify the exact entity. A city, a county, a special district and the state are different, with different notice offices.
- Check the entity’s filed statement before sending, and keep a record of when you checked. E.S. shows that proof of timing matters.
- A malpractice notice is not automatically a governmental notice. When a public health care provider is involved, both statutes may have requirements.
For crashes involving city trucks, buses and police cars, see our guide to claims after a crash with a government vehicle.
Talk to a Utah Injury Attorney
Claims against government entities are often lost on procedure rather than facts. If a public body may share responsibility for your injury, the notice deadline starts running when the claim arises.
Hurt in Utah? Call (801) 921-5134 or send us your case for a free consultation. No attorney fees unless we win. Hablamos Español.