Opinion
No. 110,410.
2014-07-11
Thomas W. DEBBRECHT and Par Digital Outdoor, Inc., Appellants, v. The CITY OF HAYSVILLE, Kansas, and Jeana M. Morgan, Appellees.
In summary, the Kansas Supreme Court has consistently held that a notice of claim and the subsequent review period is intended to provide a municipality with “an opportunity to review and investigate tort claims against it and to approve or deny such claims before having to litigate an action under the Kansas Tort Claims Act.” Cummings v. City of Lakin, 276 Kan. 858, 863, 80 P .3d 356 (2003). Here, Debbrecht filed the initial lawsuit on the same day that he served the City with an invalid notice of claim and he filed a second lawsuit that overlapped the first for more than 9 months. As such, the City has not even been afforded a single day—much less 120 days—to consider Debbrecht's claims without being forced to defend itself in court. Thus, I would affirm the district court's dismissal of this action in its entirety.