Case Name: Emilia LOPEZ, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of R.M., I.L., and F.D., minor children, Appellants, v. Alan PRAGER, State of Florida, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, and Metropolitan Dade County, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-08-31
Citations: 625 So. 2d 1240
Docket Number: No. 92-1858
Parties: Emilia LOPEZ, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of R.M., I.L., and F.D., minor children, Appellants, v. Alan PRAGER, State of Florida, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, and Metropolitan Dade County, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 625
Pages: 1240–1243

Head Matter:
Emilia LOPEZ, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of R.M., I.L., and F.D., minor children, Appellants, v. Alan PRAGER, State of Florida, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, and Metropolitan Dade County, Appellees.
No. 92-1858.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 31, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1993.
Carlos M. Rippes, Hialeah, Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch & Williams and Christopher Lynch, Miami, for appellants.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty., and Roy Wood, Asst. Co. Atty., for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and COPE, JJ.

Opinion:
BARKDULL, Judge.
On August 16, 1988, appellants' counsel, Carlos M. Rippes, notified the Insurance Commissioner of appellants' intent to sue the State of Florida and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Department of Insurance responded on September 23, 1988, stating that it had no interest in any claim against any city or county. About February 17,1989, appellants' counsel, upon learning that appellee, Prager, was employed by the county, notified the appropriate county authorities. They responded and sent what they said were the necessary forms to be completed. Appellants' counsel completed those forms and submitted all further correspondence to the claims adjuster for the county.
Appellants brought a suit against appellees alleging that appellee, Prager, had sexually assaulted and molested appellants, R.M., 1.L., and F.D.; that appellee, Dade County failed to perform a reasonable investigation which would have revealed Prager's past conviction for sex related offenses as well as his suspension from the National Association of Social Workers, Inc. for allegations of sexual misconduct; and that The State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services had failed to warn appellant, Emilia Lopez, or to take any action to prevent further abuse after receiving complaints of sexual abuse by appellee, Prager.
Appellee, Dade County, raised an affirmative defense that appellants failed to furnish the necessary notice in writing to the Department of Insurance prior to initiating the action as required by Section 768.28 of the Florida Statutes and was therefore barred. A Motion for summary judgment filed by Dade County, was granted by the trial court which agreed that appellants were obligated to provide a notice of intent to the Department of Insurance and the County. This appeal follows.
The trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of appellee county, as appellants failed to send written notification to the Department of Insurance stating their intent to file an action against Dade County. A notice of intent to sue the State of Florida or HRS is not equivalent to, nor may it be inferred as a notice of intent to sue Dade County. Dade County is a separate defendant and there is a separate cause of action against it. Scarlett v. Public Health Trust, 584 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Neither the Department of Insurance nor Dade County waived the notice requirement of Florida Statutes Section 768.28(6). Waiver of notification to the Department of Insurance cannot be interpreted from the action of Dade County's claims adjuster because no representation was made with respect to any communication between plaintiffs counsel and the state. The county representative had no reason to know that appellants' counsel had not notified the Department of Insurance and had no duty to inform it of such requirement. If anything, counsel had knowledge that the prerequisite of notice existed and it was his duty to determine the conditions under which suit is authorized. The notice requirement is not obviated just because the State Department of Insurance expresses lack of interest in the claim. Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So.2d 210 (Fla.1983).
Actions of the state may not be raised as an estoppel against the county. See and compare Menendez v. North Broward Hospital District, 537 So.2d 89 (Fla.1988). Plaintiff-counsel was under a continuing duty to know the law applicable to notice as a precondition to suing a government agency. See and compare Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984).
Therefore for the reasons above stated, the order under review, be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.
. August 16, 1988
Insurance Commissioner
Department of Insurance
Process Section P.O. Box 6100
Tallahassee, FL 32314-6100
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE
Re: Lopez vs. Prager, HRS, and State of Florida Dear Sirs:
The undersigned has been retained by Mrs. Emilia Lopez and her minor children, to-wit: F.D., R.M., and I.L.
Pursuant to Florida Statutes, 768.28(5)-768.-28(8), this letter will hereby serve as notice of my clients intent to sue the State of Florida
This case involves the sexual battery committed by one former State employee, Alan Bradley Prager, against the aforementioned minor children.
Enclosed herewith please find copies of the Information filed by Janet Reno, State Attorney, against Alan Bradley Prager.
Please be advised that we shall sue the State of Florida and HRS unless a proper settlement is not forthcoming.
In anticipation of reaching an amicable settlement, I remain
Veiy truly yours,
Carlos M. Rippes
. September 23, 1988 Carlos M. Rippes, Esquire 24 East 5th Street Hialeah, FL 33010
RE: Lopez vs. Prager, HRS, and State of Florida
Dear Mr. Rippes,
Reference to your letter of August 16, 1988. It is not clear from your letter why you are making claim against HRS or the State of Florida. If you intend to make a claim against HRS, we need you to outline in specific detail the basis of your claim. HRS records show that Mr. Prager has never been employed by HRS. Therefore, we do not see any basis for a claim against HRS or the State of Florida. We have no interest in any claim against any city or county.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Judy Duell
Insurance Specialist III
Bureau of State Liability Claims
. Section 768.28(6)(a) reads as follows:
An action may not be instituted on a claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivi sions unless the claimant presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency, and also, except as to any claim against a municipality or the Spaceport Florida Authority, presents such claim in writing to the Department of Insurance, within 3 years after such claim accrues and the Department of Insurance or the appropriate agency denies the claim in writing; except that, if such claim is for contribution pursuant to s. 768.31, it must be so presented within 6 months after the judgment against the tortfeasor seeking contribution has become final by lapse of time for appeal or after appellate review or, if there is no such judgment, within 6 months after the tortfeasor seeking contribution has either discharged the common liability by payment or agreed, while the action is pending against him, to discharge the common liability.