Court Opinion

ID: 9884144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:40:09.758858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:35.949866
License: Public Domain

REES, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from Division II and the result.
I cannot agree with the conclusions of the majority that the letter, treated by the majority as a notice of claim, satisfies the requirements of § 613A.5, The Code. I agree with defendant’s contention that the letter was no more, and no less, than a complaint of police misconduct. I find nothing in the letter to indicate Mrs. Cook was claiming, or expecting redress for any claimed injury by way of monetary payment. Nor is there anything in the letter which could or should have alerted the municipal authorities to the fact plaintiff was claiming compensation; or in any manner suggesting the defendant city could be expected to require plaintiff to “furnish full information” as to the “amount of compensation or other relief demanded.”
Section 613A.5, The Code, defines the minimal essentials of the notice of claim as to form and context. We have refused to extend the true impact and literal meaning of § 613A.5, and have held the notice, with all of the statutorily prescribed minimal content, is specifically a requirement of the statute, and condition precedent to the maintenance of suit. American States Insurance Co. v. City of Dubuque, 186 N.W.2d 601, 604 (Iowa 1971).
I would accordingly affirm the trial court.
MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS and Le-GRAND, JJ., join in this dissent.