The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2022

In light of the foregoing discussion, attorneys and lower courts may be wary of relying on the provisions of the GTCA and uncertain whether following the plain language of the statute will lead to the correct result on appeal.

take note of a couple of things. First, the contact information of the claimant must be provided in the notice, and second, the contact information of an agent authorized to settle the claim ( i.e., the claimant’s attorney) must be provided. If the statute intended to give claimants the option of providing either the claimant’s contact information or their attor ney’s contact information, one would think the statutory language would say so. Nevertheless, the 10th Circuit noted, “The Oklahoma Supreme Court has taken a practi cal approach to the statutory notice requirements.” 24 In discussing Mounds , the 10th Circuit explained: In I.T.K. v. Mounds Public Schools , the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized the duty to file, but acknowledged the statute’s flex ibility as to the manner of filing: “[B]ecause the manner of filing with the clerk’s office is not statu torily specified as mandatory ,” “a superintendent is a proper recip ient for notice when the super intendent’s managerial duties require both representing the board and transmitting to a clerk for filing any financial claims against the school district.” 25

that asked whether notice to an insurance representative of a school district could satisfy the notice requirement of the GTCA. 19 The Court of Civil Appeals found that it did, noting the Mounds opin ion “ruled against a literal reading of Section 156(D).” 20 The Alburtus opinion recognized “an insurance agent is not the same as a superin tendent” but still found, based on the facts of the case and analysis of the Mounds opinion, that the insur ance representative could bind the school as its agent. 21 Similarly, the 10th Circuit heard a case, Osterhout v. Board of County Commissioners of LeFlore County, Oklahoma , in 2021 and relied on the Mounds opinion in its deci sion. 22 There, the provision at issue was §156(E), which provides, inter alia , that a written tort claim notice “shall state … the name, address, and telephone number of the claimant , the name, address, and telephone number of any agent authorized to settle the claim, and any and all other information required to meet the reporting requirements of [a specified federal statute].” 23 As was the case with the pro vision at issue in Mounds , a read ing of the plain language of the statute would cause the reader to

The 10th Circuit then relied on the Mounds reasoning in holding that a claimant need not provide their own contact information when submitting notice of a tort claim despite the plain language of the statute stating the contrary. The 10th Circuit explained its interpre tation of the statute by pointing to Rule 4.2 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, which gen erally requires an attorney to con tact a represented party through counsel. 26 While this is certainly a valid reason for a school dis trict’s attorney (or attorney for any political subdivision) to not directly contact a represented claimant, it is probably not what the Oklahoma Legislature had in mind when it created the statutory requirement in the GTCA. CONCLUSION It remains to be seen whether the Oklahoma Legislature will ever pass legislation clarifying the notice requirements of the GTCA in response to Mounds , Alburtus or Osterhout as it did following the Minie opinion. For now, attorneys must work with a relatively com plex web of case law to determine which tort claim notice require ments in the GTCA require “strict

SEPTEMBER 2022 | 29

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL