Court Opinion

ID: 9537685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:21:24.656853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:53.753314
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Justice,
concurring:
I write only to clarify the majority’s statement that “[i]f a plaintiff fails to satisfy the sixty-day requirement and the defendant brings this fact to the attention of the Division, the Division could reasonably deny the plaintiff prelitigation review.” While not complying with the sixty-day requirement might be a basis for the Commission to deny prelitigation review, a plaintiff may cure that noncompliance by filing and serving a new notice of intent to commence action and by filing a request for prelitigation review within sixty days from the new notice.1 Gramlich v. Munsey, 838 P.2d 1131, 1133 (Utah 1992). It should also be made clear that Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-12 does not require the Commission to deny prelitigation review merely because the plaintiff has not complied with the sixty-day requirement.
*924DURHAM, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of STEWART, J.
HOWE, Associate Chief Justice, does not participate herein.

. This is assuming, of course, that the plaintiff does so within the applicable limitations period. See Gramlich v. Munsey, 838 P.2d 1131, 1133 (Utah 1992).