Plaintiff filed a government claim with Shasta in 2012, claiming its employees revealed confidences about her to others in 2009 and 2010, but that she did not learn of that tort until 2011, so it appeared her government claim was timely. Relying on the claim’s representation, Shasta denied her claim on substantive grounds, not as untimely, and so did not send her the notice that it would otherwise have been required to send her stating she had 6 months in which to seek leave of court to file a late claim. At plaintiff’s deposition in her suit following denial of her government claim, plaintiff testified she actually learned about the tort in 2009. Held, the plaintiff is estopped from arguing that Shasta waived the untimeliness of her claim by failing to notify her of her right to seek court leave to file a late claim. Shasta didn’t send her the required notice because it reasonably relied on her misrepresentation of the date of discovery.
California Court of Appeal, Third District (Mauro, Acting P.J.); July 31, 2018; 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 671