sum certain requirement in Arizona

2023Qualifying language like 3 ANDERSON v. WINSLOW Decision of the Court “approximately,” “or more,” and “no less” make it “impossible to ascertain a precise amount.” Id. at 296 ¶ 10. ¶11 A claimant complies with the sum certain requirement if the claimant makes an offer.

2018Id. ; see also Deer Valley , 214 Ariz. at 296 , ¶ 9 , 152 P.3d at 493 (describing the sum certain requirement as an instruction "to include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim"). ¶ 10 The notice of claim statute does not require that the proffered settlement amount be objectively reasonable; it simply requires a statement of a specific settlement amount with supporting facts.

2008In Young v. City of Scottsdale, this Court tried to clarify Dassinger in light of Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 164 Ariz. 462 , 793 P.2d 1129 (App.1990), to adopt a reasonable estimate standard for the sum certain requirement. 193 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 10-11 , 970 P.2d 942, 945 (App.1998).

2008In Young v. City of Scottsdale, this Court tried to clarify Dassinger in light of Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 164 Ariz. 462 , 793 P.2d 1129 (App.1990), to adopt a reasonable estimate standard for the sum certain requirement. 193 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 10-11 , 970 P.2d 942, 945 (App.1998).

2018Id. ; see also Deer Valley , 214 Ariz. at 296 , ¶ 9 , 152 P.3d at 493 (describing the sum certain requirement as an instruction "to include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim"). ¶ 10 The notice of claim statute does not require that the proffered settlement amount be objectively reasonable; it simply requires a statement of a specific settlement amount with supporting facts.

2008Equally important, when the claimant stated a figure, she noted she may actually hold out for “more.” Id. (emphasis omitted). “[H]er damages for emotional distress and harm to her reputation [were] ‘no less than’ $300,000 and $200,000, respectively.” Id.; cf. Fields, 219 Ariz. at 90 , 193 P.3d at 784 , 2008 WL 1796039 , at *1-2, ¶ 3 (holding that demands for benefits “not less than 10 million dollars!,]” contributions “greater than 50 million dollars and less than 100 million dollars!,]” and attorneys’ fees “not less than $1,500,000.00” were ambiguous and did not satisfy the sum certain requir

2008In Young v. City of Scottsdale, this Court tried to clarify Dassinger in light of Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 164 Ariz. 462 , 793 P.2d 1129 (App.1990), to adopt a reasonable estimate standard for the sum certain requirement. 193 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 10-11 , 970 P.2d 942, 945 (App.1998).

2008In Young v. City of Scottsdale, this Court tried to clarify Dassinger in light of Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 164 Ariz. 462 , 793 P.2d 1129 (App.1990), to adopt a reasonable estimate standard for the sum certain requirement. 193 Ariz. 110, 113, ¶¶ 10-11 , 970 P.2d 942, 945 (App.1998).

2008In Dassinger v. Oden, this Court held that a claim failed to meet the sum certain requirement when demanding unspecified amounts of lost wages and pain and suffering with no single aggregate total. 124 Ariz. 551, 552-53 , 606 P.2d 41, 42-43 (App.1979).

2008In Dassinger v. Oden, this Court held that a claim failed to meet the sum certain requirement when demanding unspecified amounts of lost wages and pain and suffering with no single aggregate total. 124 Ariz. 551, 552-53 , 606 P.2d 41, 42-43 (App.1979).

1990In Martinez , for example, the court held that a claim was in "reasonable compliance" with the FTCA's sum certain requirement even though the amount prayed for was " in excess of $100,000." Unlike Arizona law, however, the FTCA provides the rationale for striking such surplus language as "in excess of," "presently," or "approximately." Under the FTCA, the sum certain stated in an administrative claim sets a cap on the amount that may be recovered in any judicial action involving the same injury unless "the increased amount is based upon newly discovered evidence" or the claimant alleges and pr

1990If a total value is placed on the claim, a lawsuit against a public entity should not fail simply because the injured party's claim letter modifies the amount of claimed damages with terms such as: "in excess of," Martinez, 728 F.2d at 695 ; "presently," Erxleben, 668 F.2d at 270 ; "approximately," Church, 409 F. Supp. at 286-87 ; or contains other language that is surplusage.