written notice claim in Utah

2012See General Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Peterson Plumbing Supply, 2011 UT 1, ¶ 5 , 248 P.3d 972 . 112 The GIAU mandates that before a party may commence an action against a governmental entity in the district court the party must file a written notice of claim that includes, to the extent relevant here, "() a brief statement of the facts; (i) the nature of the claim asserted; [and] (iH) the damages incurred by the claimant so far as they are known." See Utah Code Ann. § 63G-T-401(8)(a).

2012See General Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Peterson Plumbing Supply, 2011 UT 1, ¶ 5 , 248 P.3d 972 . 112 The GIAU mandates that before a party may commence an action against a governmental entity in the district court the party must file a written notice of claim that includes, to the extent relevant here, "() a brief statement of the facts; (i) the nature of the claim asserted; [and] (iH) the damages incurred by the claimant so far as they are known." See Utah Code Ann. § 63G-T-401(8)(a).

2024See Greene, 2001 UT 109, ¶ 16 . ¶11 One of those requirements is that “[a]ny person having a claim against a governmental entity . . . shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action.” Utah Code § 63G-7-401(2).

2012See Utah Code Ann. § 68G-7T-401(8)(a) (2011) (requiring that any person with a claim against a governmental entity "file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action"); 3 Greene v. Utah Transit Auth., 2001 UT 109, ¶16 , 37 P.3d 1156 ("Compliance with the Immunity Act is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a trial court to hear claims against governmental entities.") 4 Whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review under the correction of error standard, affording no deference to the trial court's legal conclusio

2012See Xigo Yang In v. University of Utah, 2006 UT 57, ¶ 7 , 144 P.3d 1142 .

2012See Xigo Yang In v. University of Utah, 2006 UT 57, ¶ 7 , 144 P.3d 1142 .

2008Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-11 (2) (Supp.2002) ("Any person having a claim for injury against a governmental entity, or against its employee ... shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action ...." (emphasis added)); Nielson, 888 P.2d at 135-36 (holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee, even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice). 18 .

2005See, e.g., People v. Marez, 39 P.3d 1190, 1193 (Colo.2002) (noting that a defendant need only be advised of consequences that are “definite, direct, and largely automatic”). ¶ 9 We turn now to Defendant’s arguments on appeal.

2001See Spoons v. Lewis, 1999 UT 82, ¶ 6 , 987 P.2d 36 . 116 The notice of claim provision of the Immunity Act reads as follows: [alny person having a claim for injury against a governmental entity, or against an employee for an act or omission occurring during the performance of the employee's duties, within the seope of employment, or under color of authority shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action, regardless of whether or not the function giving rise to the claim is characterized as governmental.

2001See Spoons v. Lewis, 1999 UT 82, ¶ 6 , 987 P.2d 36 . 116 The notice of claim provision of the Immunity Act reads as follows: [alny person having a claim for injury against a governmental entity, or against an employee for an act or omission occurring during the performance of the employee's duties, within the seope of employment, or under color of authority shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action, regardless of whether or not the function giving rise to the claim is characterized as governmental.

1983The word "injury" is defined in § 63-30-2(6) as "death, injury to a person, damage to or loss of property, or any other injury that a person may suffer to his person, or estate, that would be actionable if inflicted by a private person or his agent." This definition of "injury" underscores the real concern of the governmental immunity act, namely that "a governmental entity, like individuals and private entities, should be liable for an injury inflicted by it." Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp., Utah, 605 P.2d 1230, 1234 (1980).

1983The word “injury” is defined in § 63-30-2(6) as “death, injury to a person, damage to or loss of property, or any other injury that a person may suffer to his person, or estate, that would be actionable if inflicted by a private person or his agent.” This definition of “injury” underscores the real concern of the governmental immunity act, namely that “a governmental entity, like individuals and private entities, should be liable for an injury inflicted by it.” Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp., Utah, 605 P.2d 1230, 1234 (1980).