Husband and wife brought action against city and its public works superintendent for injuries wife sustained when their vehicle ran off the road and for damages for husband’s loss of consortium.
The Superior Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that ante litem notice did not comply with statutory requirements. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs’ ante litem notice did not substantially comply with ante litem notice statute.
Husband and wife’s ante litem notice did not substantially comply with ante litem notice statute, in their action against city and its public works superintendent for injuries wife sustained when their vehicle ran off the road and for damages for husband’s loss of consortium; plaintiffs’ statement that claim likely exceeded $100,000 merely provided an estimate of potential damages and was not the specific amount of monetary damages being sought, statement was not specific enough to constitute an offer of compromise that could be accepted, and fact that city could investigate claim in response to notice did not remedy plaintiffs’ failure to comply with ante litem notice statute.