Opinion ID: 1971616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Literal Compliance Required

Text: Section 6856(3) imposes an affirmative duty on a plaintiff seeking to avoid the impact of the two-year statute of limitations to establish compliance with section 6856(3) in the complaint. The statute directs plaintiffs to attach a copy of the Notice of Intent required by section 6856(3), that was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. [35] Courts have no authority to vary the terms of a statute of clear meaning or ignore mandatory provisions. . . .  [36] Delaware courts have consistently held that strict construction is particularly important when construing statutes of limitation where the General Assembly has evinced its intent to bar claims filed after the stated time. [37] With respect to Title 18, section 6856, this Court has previously held that the plain terms of the statute must be enforced, even if they produce a somewhat unfortunate result. [38] In Ewing, this Court considered whether it was appropriate to apply the termination of relationship or the continuous treatment doctrines to expand the two-year limitations period set forth in section 6856. After a review of the legislative of section 6856, this Court refused to expand the period, reasoning that where the legislature has made no exception to the positive terms of a statute, the presumption is that it intended to make none, and it is not the province of the court to do so. [39] As this Court further explained: We have no alternative but to enforce Section 6856 in accordance with its plain terms despite the somewhat unfortunate result produced. As we have previously stated: [this Court does not] sit as a super legislature to eviscerate proper legislative enactments. If the policy or wisdom of a particular law is questioned as unreasonable or unjust, then only the elected representatives of the people may amend or repeal it. Judges must take the law as they find it, and their personal predilections as to what the law should be have no place in efforts to override properly stated legislative will. Although construing a statute of limitations does not constitute the creation of an exception to the statute in violation of the prohibition against judicial legislation, [40] creating an exception under the guise of construction where a statute is clear and unambiguous is improper. [41] In this case, the certified mail requirement is not reasonably susceptible to different conclusions or interpretations. A literal interpretation of the term certified mail does not lead to an absurd or unreasonable result. The General Assembly provided for Notice of Intent to investigate to be sent only by certified mail when section 6856(3) was enacted in 2003, notwithstanding its use of broader service provisions in prior statutory enactments in 2001 and 2002. We, therefore, hold that strict compliance with the unambiguous certified mail provision in section 6856(3) was required.