Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107 (2026)

Notice to governmental entity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Notice requirements for filing.  Within 365 days after any claim or cause of action permitted by this chapter accrues, or at a later time within the limits of section 8110, when a claimant shows good cause why notice could not have reasonably been filed within the 365-day limit, a claimant or a claimant's personal representative or attorney shall file a written notice containing:  
A. The name and address of the claimant, and the name and address of the claimant's attorney or other representative, if any;   [PL 1989, c. 327 (AMD).]
B. A concise statement of the basis of the claim, including the date, time, place and circumstances of the act, omission or occurrence complained of;   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
C. The name and address of any governmental employee involved, if known;   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
D. A concise statement of the nature and extent of the injury claimed to have been suffered; and   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
E. A statement of the amount of monetary damages claimed.   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2019, c. 214, §1 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 214, §3 (AFF).]
2.  Incapacity.  If the claimant is incapacitated and thereby prevented from presenting and filing the claim within the time prescribed or if the claimant is a minor, the claim may be presented and filed on behalf of the claimant by any relative, attorney or agent representing the claimant. If the claimant is a minor when the cause of action accrues, the notice may be presented within 365 days of the minor's attaining 18 years of age.  
[PL 2019, c. 214, §2 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 214, §3 (AFF).]
3.  Notices.   
A. If the claim is against the State or an employee thereof, copies of the notice shall be addressed to and filed with the state department, board, agency, commission or authority whose act or omission is said to have caused the injury and the Attorney General.   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
B. Notice of claims against any political subdivision or an employee thereof shall be addressed to and filed with one of the persons upon whom a summons and complaint could be served under the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4, in a civil action against a political subdivision.   [PL 1977, c. 578, §3 (AMD).]
[PL 1979, c. 578, §3 (AMD).]
4.  Substantial notice compliance required.  No claim or action shall be commenced against a governmental entity or employee in the Superior Court unless the foregoing notice provisions are substantially complied with. A claim filed under this section shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of an inaccuracy in stating the time, place, nature or cause of the claim, or otherwise, unless it is shown that the governmental entity was in fact prejudiced thereby. A claim filed under this section shall not be held invalid solely because a claim based on the same facts was filed under a different statutory procedure and was disallowed.  
[PL 1977, c. 591, §3 (AMD).]
5.  Definition of good cause.  "Good cause" as used in subsection 1 includes but is not limited to any cases in which any official of the governmental entity whose duties and authority include the settlement of tort claims or any tort liability insurer of the governmental entity makes direct oral or written contacts with the claimant or the claimant's personal representative or attorney, including payments to or on behalf of the claimant, that contain or imply a promise of coverage sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that the losses for which no timely notice claim is filed would be covered.  
If oral or written contact is limited to coverage for specific injuries or damage, a claimant is not excused from filing the notice required by this section in relation to other claims or causes of action permitted by this chapter that arise out of the same incident or event.  
Nothing in this subsection prevents the injured party and an agent or insurer of the governmental entity from entering into a consensual agreement pursuant to which the injured party releases the governmental entity from any further liability in exchange for an agreed upon consideration.  
[PL 1991, c. 460 (NEW).]
This section shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted under the Rules of Civil Procedure by a 3rd party complaint, crossclaim or counterclaim.   [PL 1977, c. 2, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 2, §§2,5 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 578, §3 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 591, §§3,6 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 68, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 740, §6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 327 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 460 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 249, §1 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 214, §§1, 2 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 214, §3 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Givertz v. Maine Med. Ctr., 459 A.2d 548 (Me. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Givertz v. Maine Med. Ctr., 459 A.2d 548 (Me. 1983). · cites it 12× “He seeks *552 to excuse the noncompliance by reason of his filing the statutory notice of claim on December 12, 1978 with the Augusta Mental Health Institute in connection with a prospective tort claim against that State agency and the State of Maine pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. §…”
Faucher v. City of Auburn, 465 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1983). · cites it 8× “Faucher argues that the presiding justice erred in concluding that Faucher had failed to comply with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, [1] the notice provision of the MTCA.”
McLaughlin v. Superintending Sch. Comm., 2003 ME 114 (Me. 2003). · cites it 6× “Patricia contends that the Superior Court erred in finding that (1) she failed to comply with the 180-day notice requirement of the *784 Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1) (2003), and (2) that the September 2001 amendment to 14 M.”
Mueller v. Penobscot Valley Hosp., 538 A.2d 294 (Me. 1988). · cites it 7× “On appeal plaintiff argues that the Superi- or Court erred in granting summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Maine Tort Claims Act’s 180-day notice provision (14 M.R.S.A. § 8107 (1980)) because the provision is inapplicable to his tort action against…”
Beaulieu v. the Aube Corp., 2002 ME 79 (Me. 2002). · cites it 3× “1986) (noting that the MLLA was “the result of a comprehensive study on the dram shop law conducted by the Joint Standing Com *689 mittee on Legal Affairs” and that the committee report “includes an in-depth explanation of each section”).”
Erickson v. State, 444 A.2d 345 (Me. 1982). · cites it 6× “The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's action against the State on the ground that Erickson failed to comply with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, the notice provision of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA).”
John E. Deschenes v. City of Sanford, 2016 ME 56 (Me. 2016). · cites it 5× “1 Deschenes contends that-the court erroneously concluded that he failed to substantially comply with the notice requirement of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8107 (2015). Because we now conclude that a person cannot substantially comply with the Act if he provides only…”
Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421 (Me. 1987). · cites it 3× “Earlier, on November 13, 1981, soon after he killed his wife, Darling had filed with the Attorney General notice pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107 (1980), of a claim against AMHI, Commissioner Concannon, Superintendent Mullaney, and various AMHI employees…”
Hall v. Town of Kittery, 556 A.2d 662 (Me. 1989). · cites it 10× “) ruled erroneously that plaintiffs had substantially complied with the 180-day notice requirement for the claim against a government entity or employee imposed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107 *663 (1980 & Supp.1988).”
Heber v. Lucerne-In-Maine Vill. Corp., 2000 ME 137 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107. These arguments are not persuasive.”
Kelly v. Univ. of Maine, 623 A.2d 169 (Me. 1993). · cites it 6× “14 M.R.S.A. § 8107. An accident report was filed with the University Department of Public Safety, which forwarded it to the University Chancellor’s office.”
Peters v. City of Westbrook, 2001 ME 179 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “Because Peters failed to demonstrate good cause for her failure to file a timely notice of claim on the City and Roberts pursuant to the requirements of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1) (Supp.2001), we affirm the judgment.”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(1) — 47 cases
McLaughlin v. Superintending Sch. Comm., 2003 ME 114 (Me. 2003). “Patricia contends that the Superior Court erred in finding that (1) she failed to comply with the 180-day notice requirement of the *784 Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1) (2003), and (2) that the September 2001 amendment to 14 M.”
Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421 (Me. 1987). “Earlier, on November 13, 1981, soon after he killed his wife, Darling had filed with the Attorney General notice pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107 (1980), of a claim against AMHI, Commissioner Concannon, Superintendent Mullaney, and various AMHI employees…”
Peters v. City of Westbrook, 2001 ME 179 (Me. 2001). “Because Peters failed to demonstrate good cause for her failure to file a timely notice of claim on the City and Roberts pursuant to the requirements of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1) (Supp.2001), we affirm the judgment.”
Faucher v. City of Auburn, 465 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1983). “Faucher argues that the presiding justice erred in concluding that Faucher had failed to comply with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, [1] the notice provision of the MTCA.”
Beaulieu v. the Aube Corp., 2002 ME 79 (Me. 2002). “1986) (noting that the MLLA was “the result of a comprehensive study on the dram shop law conducted by the Joint Standing Com *689 mittee on Legal Affairs” and that the committee report “includes an in-depth explanation of each section”).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(1)(2006) — 1 case
St. John v. Jordan (Me. Super. Ct 2007).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(1)(A) — 4 cases
John E. Deschenes v. City of Sanford, 2016 ME 56 (Me. 2016). “1 Deschenes contends that-the court erroneously concluded that he failed to substantially comply with the notice requirement of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8107 (2015). Because we now conclude that a person cannot substantially comply with the Act if he provides only…”
Palm v. Sisters of Charity Health, Sys., 537 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Me. 2008).
Diviney v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 158 A.3d 5 (Me. 2017).
Aleshia D. Diviney v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 2017 ME 56 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(1)(B) — 2 cases
Roberts v. State, 1999 ME 89 (Me. 1999).
Theriault v. Univ. of S. Maine, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Me. 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(1)(C) — 2 cases
Kakitis v. Perry, 659 A.2d 852 (Me. 1995).
Pollack v. Quirion (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(1)(E) — 2 cases
Hall v. Town of Kittery, 556 A.2d 662 (Me. 1989). “) ruled erroneously that plaintiffs had substantially complied with the 180-day notice requirement for the claim against a government entity or employee imposed by 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107 *663 (1980 & Supp.1988).”
Palm v. Sisters of Charity Health, Sys., 537 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Me. 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(2) — 1 case
McLaughlin v. Superintending Sch. Comm., 2003 ME 114 (Me. 2003). “Patricia contends that the Superior Court erred in finding that (1) she failed to comply with the 180-day notice requirement of the *784 Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107(1) (2003), and (2) that the September 2001 amendment to 14 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(3) — 4 cases
Faucher v. City of Auburn, 465 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1983). “Faucher argues that the presiding justice erred in concluding that Faucher had failed to comply with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, [1] the notice provision of the MTCA.”
Palm v. Sisters of Charity Health, Sys., 537 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Me. 2008).
McCarthy v. Inhabitants of the Town of Kennebunkport, 366 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D. Me. 2005).
Perry v. Dean (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(3)(A) — 4 cases
Kelly v. Univ. of Maine, 623 A.2d 169 (Me. 1993). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8107. An accident report was filed with the University Department of Public Safety, which forwarded it to the University Chancellor’s office.”
Acadia Ins. Co. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Transp. (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
Warrander v. Maine Dep't of Corr. (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
Reid v. Bissell (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(3)(B) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 763 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
Robinson v. Washington Cnty., 529 A.2d 1357 (Me. 1987).
Acadia Ins. Co. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Transp. (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(4) — 23 cases
Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 20 (Me. 2004).
Faucher v. City of Auburn, 465 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1983). “Faucher argues that the presiding justice erred in concluding that Faucher had failed to comply with 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107, [1] the notice provision of the MTCA.”
Beaulieu v. the Aube Corp., 2002 ME 79 (Me. 2002). “1986) (noting that the MLLA was “the result of a comprehensive study on the dram shop law conducted by the Joint Standing Com *689 mittee on Legal Affairs” and that the committee report “includes an in-depth explanation of each section”).”
Givertz v. Maine Med. Ctr., 459 A.2d 548 (Me. 1983). “He seeks *552 to excuse the noncompliance by reason of his filing the statutory notice of claim on December 12, 1978 with the Augusta Mental Health Institute in connection with a prospective tort claim against that State agency and the State of Maine pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. §…”
Johnson v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 763 P.2d 1382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(4)(2020) — 1 case
John Doe v. Maine Bd. of Osteopathic Licensure, 2020 ME 134 (Me. 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(5) — 4 cases
Kelly v. Univ. of Maine, 623 A.2d 169 (Me. 1993). “14 M.R.S.A. § 8107. An accident report was filed with the University Department of Public Safety, which forwarded it to the University Chancellor’s office.”
Smith v. Voisine, 650 A.2d 1350 (Me. 1994).
Morse v. Anderson (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
Wildes v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2005).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(l)(A) — 1 case
Reid v. Bissell (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 8107(l)(B) — 1 case
MMG Ins. CO. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Transp. (Me. Super. Ct 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.