Lets talk about the Government Claims Act. We all know it is supposed to be a powerful shield, protecting public funds by setting up strict rules for anyone wanting to sue for damages. But lets be honest—that shield has some tricky buckles and straps. A misstep in handling a claim can turn that shield into a costly trap, waiving defenses and extending lawsuit deadlines from six months to two years. Recent court decisions have tightened the screws, making procedural perfection more critical than ever. This isn't just for the lawyers; its for the city clerks, department heads, and risk managers on the front lines. Here is a quick, 5-minute rundown of the biggest pitfalls and how to sidestep them.
Lets talk about the Government Claims Act. We all know it is supposed to be a powerful shield, protecting public funds by setting up strict rules for anyone wanting to sue for damages. But lets be honest—that shield has some tricky buckles and straps. A misstep in handling a claim can turn that shield into a costly trap, waiving defenses and extending lawsuit deadlines from six months to two years.
Recent court decisions have tightened the screws, making procedural perfection more critical than ever. This isn't just for the lawyers; its for the city clerks, department heads, and risk managers on the front lines.
Here is a quick, 5-minute rundown of the biggest pitfalls and how to sidestep them.
Is That a Claim? (It Probably Is):
The biggest point of failure often happens right at the start: an employee receives a letter or email and doesn't recognize it as a legal claim. The courts do not care about formalities. They apply a test called substantial compliance, asking if a document gives you enough information to investigate a potential lawsuit. That angry, multi-page letter from a resident about a sewer backup causing $200,000 in damage? A court could easily see that as a claim.
The 2022 Simms v. Bear Valley Community Healthcare case reinforced that any document asserting a right to compensation that hints at future litigation is a trigger-claim. Once you receive a trigger-claim, even an incomplete one, a legal duty to respond kicks in. If you fail to send a notice of insufficiency to point out the missing information, you waive any right to complain about it later.
The Golden Rule: When in doubt, treat it as a claim. Immediately route anything that smells like a claim to your designated official, such as the City Clerk.
The 45-Day Countdown: The 3 Notices You Can't Afford to Mix Up
Once you receive a claim, you have 45 days to act on it. If you do nothing, it is deemed rejected, and the claimant gets a full two years to sue. To lock in the much shorter six-month lawsuit window, you must send a specific, legally perfect written denial. But beware... using the wrong denial for the wrong situation is a classic blunder.
Trap #1: The Timely Claim Denial.
You deny a claim on its merits but your notice omits the required warning, You may seek the advice of an attorney... as seen in the Andrews case.
- Result: Your notice is defective, and the two-year lawsuit clock applies. Courts demand strict compliance here.
Trap #2: The Untimely Claim.
You receive a claim that is clearly late. Instead of sending the specific notice under Section 911.3 stating it is being returned for untimeliness, you deny it on the merits.
- Result: You have just waived your timeliness defense, a lesson learned the hard way in the Roger case.
Trap #3: The Late Claim Application.
A claimant sends both a late claim and an application to have it accepted. You respond with a standard merits denial notice.
- Result: As the Lowry case showed, by using the wrong form, you have impliedly granted their application to file late, creating a right you meant to deny.
Who Gets the Mail? A Surprising Answer
So you have drafted the perfect notice. Now, who do you send it to? Logic might suggest sending it to the claimants attorney. The law says: NO.
Government Code Section 915.4 is brutally specific: the notice must be mailed to the address listed on the claim form itself—either the claimants address or the specific address designated for notices.
In the 2021 Cavey v. Tualla case, a public entity sent the rejection to the claimant’s attorney instead of the P.O. Box the claimant listed on her form. The court ruled the notice was improper, the six-month clock never started, and a lawsuit filed 11 months later was allowed to proceed.
Big News: A Landmark Shift in Employee Immunity
For decades, public employees enjoyed broad immunity for actions taken while investigating potential crimes under Government Code Section 821.6. That shield just got a lot smaller.In its landmark 2023 decision, Leon v. County of Riverside, the California Supreme Court ruled this immunity is narrow. It only protects employees from claims of malicious prosecution (the act of wrongly initiating a legal proceeding). It does not provide blanket immunity for other torts—like negligence—committed during the course of an investigation.
This is a fundamental recalibration of risk, especially for law enforcement and other investigative agencies. You can no longer assume that Section 821.6 will get these cases dismissed early.
What to Watch: The Supreme Court has also granted review in K.C. v. County of Merced to decide the scope of discretionary immunity for social workers who fail to investigate abuse claims. The outcome will have major implications, so stay tuned.
Your 4-Point Action Plan
The Claims Act demands discipline from the whole organization, not just the lawyers.
Train Your Front Lines. Your administrative staff are your first line of defense. Train them annually to spot and immediately route potential claims.
Use the Right Template. Do not mix and match denial notices. Ensure you are using the correct, statutorily compliant form for each scenario (timely, untimely, late claim application).
Triple-Check the Mailing Address. Remember the Cavey rule! Send the notice to the address on the claim form, not necessarily to the attorney.
Re-evaluate Investigative Risk. Following the Leon decision, consult with legal counsel. That old immunity defense for investigative conduct is no longer a given.
Should you have any questions about navigating the Govt. Claims Act, please contact us here.
