person making claim in Indiana

2008The statement must include the circumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, the amount of the damages sought, and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice. “[N]otice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the content requirements of the statute.” Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d 497, 499 (Ind.1989).

2005The statement must include the cireumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, the amount of the damages sought, and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice. "[N]otice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the content requirements of the statute." Howard County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Lukowiak, 810 N.E.2d 379, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), clarified on reh'g, 813 N.E.2d 391 (Ind.Ct.App.2004); see also Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d

2017Ind. Code § 34-13-3-10 (1998). [7] Compliance with these provisions “is a procedural precedent which need not be pleaded but may be raised as a defense in a responsive pleading.” City of Indianapolis v. Satz, 268 Ind. 561, 584 , 377 N.E.2d 623, 625 (Ind. 1978).

2013Fowler v. Brewer, 773 N.E.2d 858, 864 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied.

2013“In general, the cause of action of a tort claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have discovered that an injury had been sustained as a result of the tortious act of another.” Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076, 1082 (Ind.2008) (quotation omitted). “[N]otice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the content requirements of the statute.” Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d 497, 499 (Ind.1989).

2012I.C. § 34-13-3-10.2 Our supreme court has explained: 2 Buschman makes much of the fact that a previous version of the Act required a description of, among other things, “‘the nature and extent of the injury to person and loss, injury or damage, if any, to property, . . . and the nature of the damages arising to anyone therefrom . . . .’” City of Evansville v. Rieber, 179 Ind. App. 256, 258 , 385 N.E.2d 217, 220 (1979) (quoting Ind. Ann.

2012I.C. § 34-13-3-10.2 Our supreme court has explained: 2 Buschman makes much of the fact that a previous version of the Act required a description of, among other things, “‘the nature and extent of the injury to person and loss, injury or damage, if any, to property, . . . and the nature of the damages arising to anyone therefrom . . . .’” City of Evansville v. Rieber, 179 Ind. App. 256, 258 , 385 N.E.2d 217, 220 (1979) (quoting Ind. Ann.

2010Grp., 634 N.E.2d 791, 793 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2005In determining whether substantial compliance is established, we note the purpose of the notice requirements as follows: "[Tlo inform state officials with reasonable certainty of the accident or incident and surrounding cireumstances and to advise of the injured party's intent to assert a tort claim so that the state may investigate, determine its possible liability, and prepare a defense to the claim." Garnelis v. Indiana State Dep't of Health, 806 N.E.2d 365, 368 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Indiana Dep't of Transp. v. Shelly & Sands, Inc., 756 N.E.2d 1063, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denie

2005The statement must include the cireumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, the amount of the damages sought, and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice. "[N]otice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the content requirements of the statute." Howard County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Lukowiak, 810 N.E.2d 379, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), clarified on reh'g, 813 N.E.2d 391 (Ind.Ct.App.2004); see also Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d

2005The statement must include the cireumstances which brought about the loss, the extent of the loss, the time and place the loss occurred, the names of all persons involved if known, the amount of the damages sought, and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the loss and at the time of filing the notice. "[N]otice is sufficient if it substantially complies with the content requirements of the statute." Howard County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Lukowiak, 810 N.E.2d 379, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), clarified on reh'g, 813 N.E.2d 391 (Ind.Ct.App.2004); see also Collier v. Prater, 544 N.E.2d

2005In determining whether substantial compliance is established, we note the purpose of the notice requirements as follows: "[Tlo inform state officials with reasonable certainty of the accident or incident and surrounding cireumstances and to advise of the injured party's intent to assert a tort claim so that the state may investigate, determine its possible liability, and prepare a defense to the claim." Garnelis v. Indiana State Dep't of Health, 806 N.E.2d 365, 368 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Indiana Dep't of Transp. v. Shelly & Sands, Inc., 756 N.E.2d 1063, 1076 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denie

1998Hasty v. Floyd Mem’l Hosp., 612 N.E.2d 119, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).

1981It is “To inform the city officials with reasonable certainty of the time, place, cause and nature of the accident and the general nature and extent of the injuries so that the city might investigate all facts pertaining to its liability and prepare its defense, or adjust the claim.” Galbreath v. City of Indianapolis (1970), 253 Ind. 472, 477 , 255 N.E.2d 225, 228 (quoting Aaron v. City of Tipton (1941), 218 Ind. 227, 230-31 , 32 N.E.2d 88, 89 ).

1981It is “To inform the city officials with reasonable certainty of the time, place, cause and nature of the accident and the general nature and extent of the injuries so that the city might investigate all facts pertaining to its liability and prepare its defense, or adjust the claim.” Galbreath v. City of Indianapolis (1970), 253 Ind. 472, 477 , 255 N.E.2d 225, 228 (quoting Aaron v. City of Tipton (1941), 218 Ind. 227, 230-31 , 32 N.E.2d 88, 89 ).