Opinion ID: 2626016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statement of Residence

Text: ¶ 18 The claim filing statute's requirement for a statement of residence is intended to give the municipality an opportunity to investigate the claimant as well as his claimed injuries. Nelson v. Dunkin, 69 Wash.2d 726, 728, 419 P.2d 984 (1966). In other words, the notice must identify the person making the claim and provide the information necessary to conduct an investigation of the claimant. If the claimant provides information that fulfills this purpose, he substantially complies with the requirement. The Court of Appeals concluded that the address provided by Renner, where he lived for two months prior to his discharge, fulfilled this purpose and thus could be found to be in substantial compliance with former RCW 4.96.020. Renner, 145 Wash.App. at 456-57, 187 P.3d 283. We agree. ¶ 19 Renner adopts the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the statute permits a claimant to provide only one address in some circumstances. [2] We approve of this reasoning. The residence requirement functions to provide the government with the identity and location of the claimant. When a claimant resides at the same address for the six months prior to the time his claim arises, only one address is required. And even a claimant who has had multiple addresses during that periodif he makes a bona fide attempt to provide the required informationwill substantially comply when the information provided fulfills the purpose of the statute. Renner supplied the information requested on the claim form, thus demonstrating his bona fide attempt to comply. ¶ 20 The information Renner provided also fulfilled the purpose of the claim filing statute. In support of its holding, the Court of Appeals noted that the city, through exercise of reasonable diligence, could have easily discovered Renner's previous address. Renner, 145 Wash.App. at 456, 187 P.3d 283. The court adopted the reasonable diligence standard from Nelson, 69 Wash.2d at 731-32, 419 P.2d 984. In Nelson, this court, after a survey of relevant cases, concluded that a claimant may substantially comply with the address requirement when the municipality can, by reasonable diligence, determine where the claimant lived during the six months preceding the claim. In this case, the same reasoning applies. The city, based on the claim and with access to additional data as needed, had the information necessary to fully investigate Renner and his claim. ¶ 21 The city in its arguments ignores the intrinsically ad hoc nature of a substantial compliance inquiry, under which we ask whether the purpose of the statute is advanced by the claimant's actions. The claim filing requirement is intended to provide the city with the identity of the claimant and the relief being sought. It cannot and should not be the basis for dismissal of a cause of action under these circumstances.