Opinion ID: 1436612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Maryland Tort Claims Act Barbre and the State

Text: Under the MTCA, Barbre, as a Deputy Sheriff of Queen Anne's County, is classified as state personnel. Section 12-101(a)(6) of the MTCA specifically provides that State personnel means . . . a sheriff or deputy sheriff of a county or Baltimore City. . . . Maryland Code (1984, 1995 Repl.Vol.), Section 12-101(a)(6) of the State Government Article. [9] The MTCA was enacted in 1981 as a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity for tortious acts or omissions committed within the scope of the public duties of state personnel, and committed without malice or gross negligence. See Kee v. State Highway Admin., 313 Md. 445, 448, 545 A.2d 1312, 1314 (1988). Under the immunity and non-liability provisions of the MTCA, state personnel are immune from suit and from liability in tort for acts or omissions committed within the scope of their public duties and without malice or gross negligence, and when the State waives its immunity pursuant to the MTCA. Section 12-105 of the State Government Article, Maryland Code (1984, 1995 Repl.Vol., 1999 Supp.), [10] governing the liability of state personnel, states in relevant part: State personnel shall have the immunity from liability described under § 5-522(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Section 5-522(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2002 Repl.Vol.), [11] provides in part: State personnel, as defined in § 12-101 of the State Government Article, are immune from suit in courts of the State and from liability in tort for a tortious act or omission that is within the scope of the public duties of the State personnel and is made without malice or gross negligence, and for which the State or its units have waived immunity under Title 12, Subtitle 1 of the State Government Article, even if the damages exceed the limits of that waiver. Section 12-104(a)-(b) of the State Government Article, Maryland Code (1984, 1995 Repl.Vol., 1999 Supp.), [12] governs the State's waiver of immunity as to a tort action: (a)(1) Subject to the exclusions and limitations in this subtitle and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the immunity of the State and of its units is waived as to a tort action, in a court of the State. . . . (b) Immunity is not waived under this section as described under § 5-522(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Section 5-522(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Maryland Code (1974, 2002 Repl.Vol.), [13] provides in part: (a) Immunity of the State is not waived under § 12-104 of the State Government Article for:       (4) Any tortious act or omission of State personnel that: (i) Is not within the scope of the public duties of the State personnel; or (ii) Is made with malice or gross negligence. . . . As a result, the State does not waive its sovereign immunity for any tortious acts outside the scope of employment or when a state personnel acts with malice or gross negligence. See e.g., Lee v. Cline, 384 Md. 245, 267-70, 863 A.2d 297, 310-12 (2004), and cases cited therein, including Sawyer v. Humphries, 322 Md. 247, 587 A.2d 467 (1991). See also Ennis v. Crenca, 322 Md. 285, 296, 587 A.2d 485, 491 (1991) (holding that under the Local Government Tort Claims Act, local government employees are not shielded from liability for tortious acts committed outside the scope of employment). Notice under the MTCA plays an integral part, however, in the invocation of waiver of the State's sovereign immunity. As originally enacted, the MTCA required claimants, prior to filing suit, to submit a claim to the State Treasurer; no specific time period was provided. Maryland Code (1974, 1980 Repl.Vol., 1983 Supp.), Section 5-406 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. In 1985, see 1985 Maryland Laws, Chapter 538, the General Assembly amended the notice requirement, and provided that, in any case a claimant must submit a written claim to the Treasurer or a designee of the Treasurer within 180 days after the injury to person or property that is the basis of the claim. Maryland Code (1984, 1985 Supp.), Section 12-106(b)(1) of the State Government Article. The Legislature amended the notice provision again in 1995, see 1995 Maryland Laws, Chapter 437, to require a plaintiff to file notice of a claim with the State Treasurer or a designee of the Treasurer within one year after the injury: (b) Claim and denial required.  A claimant may not institute an action under this subtitle unless: (1) the claimant submits a written claim to the Treasurer or a designee of the Treasurer within 1 year after the injury to person or property that is the basis for the claim. . . . Maryland Code (1984, 1995 Repl.Vol.), Section 12-106(b)(1) of the State Government Article (emphasis added). [14] In order to comply with the MTCA, a plaintiff must serve written notice upon the State Treasurer, or a designee of the State Treasurer, within one year following the injury. Pursuant to Section 12-106(b)(1) of the MTCA, which states that written notice must be submitted to the State Treasurer or a designee of the Treasurer, Maryland Code (1984, 1995 Repl.Vol.), Section 12-106(b)(1) of the State Government Article, the Office of the State Treasurer has promulgated interpretive regulations defining those designees. COMAR 25.02.01.02B(7) states: (7) Treasurer's Designee. (a) Treasurer's designee means only the: (i) Chief Deputy Treasurer; or (ii) Director of the Insurance Division of the State Treasurer's Office. (b) Treasurer's designee does not mean or include any other person, including, but not limited to: (i) An officer or employee of State government other than those persons identified in (§ ) B(7)(a), above; (ii) The Comptroller of the Treasury, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of State; or (iii) A commercial insurer, adjuster, claims administrator, or similar person who provides services to the Treasurer as an independent contractor. Clearly, under the regulation, notice to a designee of the State Treasurer only embraces that given to the Chief Deputy Treasurer or the Director of the Insurance Division of the State Treasurer's Office. Pope expressly failed to meet the notice requirements of the MTCA when he only provided written notice to the State Treasurer on May 13, 2005, fourteen months after the injury, not within the one year time period prescribed by the MTCA. See also Sawyer, 322 Md. at 257-58, 587 A.2d at 471-72 (plaintiff failed to give any notice to the State under the MTCA, which precluded suit against both the State and the State Police). [15] Pope argues that his notice to a County Commissioner within the one year period substantially complied with the MTCA because he supplemented his notice to the State Treasurer on May 13, 2005, [16] and the State was not prejudiced by the delay because the State had had notice of the incident as a result of an investigation undertaken by the State Police and the State's Attorney for Queen Anne's County, citing Faulk v. Ewing, 371 Md. 284, 808 A.2d 1262 (2002); Moore v. Norouzi, 371 Md. 154, 807 A.2d 632 (2002); and Conaway v. State, 90 Md.App. 234, 600 A.2d 1133 (1992). Pope's relies upon Faulk, 371 Md. at 284, 808 A.2d at 1262, and Moore, 371 Md. at 154, 807 A.2d at 632, both Local Government Tort Claim Act cases, to support his proposition that a claimant can substantially comply with the MTCA. The Local Government Tort Claims Act, however, by its express terms, permits judicial consideration of a claim about which the required notice was not given, when the plaintiff can show good cause, unless the defendant can affirmatively show prejudice: [A]n action for unliquidated damages may not be brought against a local government or its employees unless the notice of the claim required by this section is given within 180 days after the injury.       (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, unless the defendant can affirmatively show that its defense has been prejudiced by lack of required notice, upon motion and for good cause shown the court may entertain the suit even though the required notice was not given. Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl.Vol.), Section 5-304(b), (d) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. [17] See Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 140-45, 872 A.2d 1, 22-25 (2005). Pope's one MTCA case, Conaway, 90 Md.App. at 234, 600 A.2d at 1133, was decided by the Court of Special Appeals before our decision in Johnson v. Maryland State Police, 331 Md. 285, 628 A.2d 162 (1993). In Johnson, on facts remarkably similar to this case, the plaintiffs failed to provide notice, but asserted that the State was not prejudiced and had created several reports about the accident. In language equally applicable here, we said: The facts relied on by the plaintiffs might show that the State suffered no prejudice as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the administrative claim requirement. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs' argument confuses substantial compliance with lack of prejudice. In Simpson v. Moore, supra, 323 Md. at 218-229, 592 A.2d at 1091-1096, this Court specifically held that an action under the Maryland Tort Claims Act was barred by a failure to comply with the 180-day requirement, even though the State may have suffered no prejudice from the plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirement. As to substantial compliance itself, even assuming arguendo that it would suffice, there was no substantial compliance here. The plaintiffs have not pointed to any facts which would support their claim of substantial compliance. The plaintiffs did not undertake in any way to provide the State with notice of their claim; they rely solely on the State's own efforts in acquiring information about the incident. As we stated in Simpson, supra, 323 Md. at 228, 592 A.2d at 1096, [t]he doctrine of substantial compliance has no application to an outright failure to comply. Even if the doctrine of substantial compliance is applicable to the 180-day claim filing requirement, an issue which we do not decide today, substantial compliance requires more than a mere lack of prejudice to the State. Johnson, 331 Md. at 291-92, 628 A.2d at 165 (footnote omitted). Pope failed to provide written notice to the State Treasurer until May 13, 2005, fourteen months after the injury, not within the one year time period prescribed by the MTCA. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that substantial compliance was applicable, it cannot be invoked in the present case. Nevertheless, Pope argues that the purpose of the notice statute was satisfied because the County was the real party in interest because it was providing defense counsel for Pope under the Local Government Insurance Trust and would be ultimately responsible for the payment of any claim pursuant to Section 9-108 of the State Finance and Procurement Article. Section 9-108(b)-(c) of the State Finance and Procurement Article, Maryland Code (1985, 2001 Repl. Vol.), states in relevant part: (b) Insurance authorized.  A county or Baltimore City may obtain insurance to provide the coverage and defense necessary under the Maryland Tort Claims Act for personnel covered by this section. (c) Failure to obtain insurance.  (1) If a county or Baltimore City does not obtain adequate insurance coverage to satisfy the coverage and defense necessary under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, an assessment for coverage and for payment of any litigation expenses, other than for compensation for the time spent by any State employee working for the Attorney General, shall be set off from: (i) any tax which has been appropriated in the State budget to the county or Baltimore City; or (ii) the subdivision's share of any income tax collected by the State Comptroller. (2) Any amount due under this subsection shall be collected in the manner provided by § 7-222 of this article. Pope's contention that the County's financial responsibility for the defense and any judgment against Barbre renders notice to the County sufficient under the MTCA, however, fails to address the absence of any reference to the MTCA notice requirement in these or any other provisions of Title 9 of the State Finance and Procurement Article. The potential obligation to pay a tort judgment under the MTCA does not equate with the ability to receive notice thereunder. [18] Thus, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals, Pope, 172 Md.App. at 403, 915 A.2d at 455 (citations omitted), that [i]f neither the Comptroller, nor the Attorney General, nor any other State officer, nor an `insurer . . . who provides services to the Treasurer as an independent contractor' qualifies as a Treasurer's designee, then neither does a county officer such as a county commissioner. In the case sub judice, Pope failed to provide written notice to the State Treasurer or a designee of the State Treasurer within one year of the injury, and thus summary judgment under the immunity and non-liability provisions of the MTCA was appropriate.