Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 28-A, § 2513 (2026)

Notice required

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every plaintiff seeking damages under this Act must give written notice to all defendants within 180 days of the date of the server's conduct creating liability under this Act. The notice must specify the time, place and circumstances of the server's conduct creating liability under this Act and the time, place and circumstances of any resulting damages. No error or omission in the notice voids the effect of the notice, if otherwise valid, unless the error or omission is substantially material. Failure to give written notice within the time specified is grounds for dismissal of a claim, unless the plaintiff provides written notice within the limits of section 2514 and shows good cause why notice could not have reasonably been filed within the 180-day limit. For purposes of this section, "good cause" includes but is not limited to the inability of the plaintiff to obtain investigative records from a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency. [PL 2017, c. 77, §1 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 45, §A4 (NEW). PL 2017, c. 77, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case: Beaulieu v. the Aube Corp., 2002 ME 79 (Me. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Beaulieu v. the Aube Corp., 2002 ME 79 (Me. 2002). · cites it 3× “), determining that (1) Farrin’s untimely notice of claim to defendant Aube Corporation doing business as The Cascade Inn (Cascade Inn) was without good cause pursuant to the Maine Liquor Liability Act, 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2513 (1988), and (2) Beaulieu failed to establish a prima…”

Peters v. Saft, 597 A.2d 50 (Me. 1991). · cites it 2× “Failure to give written notice within the time specified is grounds for dismissal of the claim, unless the plaintiff provides written notice within the limits of section 2514 and shows good cause why notice could not have reasonably been filed within the 180-day limit.”

Davis v. Dionne, 26 A.3d 801 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 28-A M.R.S. § 2513. Davis does not appeal that decision.”

Thibodeau v. Slaney, 2000 ME 116 (Me. 2000). “28-A M.R.S.A. § 2513 (1988) sets forth the notice requirement in a MLLA action and states: § 2513.”

McDonald v. Dimillo (Me. Super. Ct 2023). · cites it 3× “The complaint alleges that DiMillo was operating under the influence of alcohol when she caused her vehicle to strike Patrick McDonald's motorcycle on October 30, 2021.”

Chadbourne v. Casco Aerie 565, Fraternal Order of Eagles (Me. Super. Ct 2022). · cites it 2× “28-A M.R.S. § 2513. REC'D CUMB CLERKS OFC AUG 11 '22 pw'.”

Davis v. Rodriguez (Me. Super. Ct 2009). · cites it 3× “12(b)(6) seeking dismissal the MLLA claim against it for failure to provide notice pursuant to 28-A M.R.S. § 2513 and seeking dismissal of the negligence claim against it based upon the exclusive remedy provision of the MLLA.”

Ferrell v. Clark (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 2× “Therefore, Kenkev's Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice to Kenkev filing a renewed motion to dismiss 3 with respect to the issue of whether notice was provided pursuant to 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2513. 2 The Plaintiff makes no allegation that the service of Red Bull to a…”

Desjardins v. Moody (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “28-A M.R.S. § 2513 (180-day notice of claim).”

Little v. Perry (Me. Super. Ct 2002). “” 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2513. “Good cause” exists only when the plaintiff was unable to file a claim or was “meaningfully prevented from learning the information.”

Blanchette v. Clough (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “" 28-A M.R.S.A. §2513. The defendants who filed this motion claim that Mr.”

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.