Jordan v. City of Sacramento, published today, deals with an issue that arises often in late claim and statute of limitations cases: Allegations that a public entity is estopped from asserting a time limit because the entity purportedly misled a plaintiff's attorney on the law. Here, the city's claims administrator told the attorney for a trip and fall plaintiff that the city was not liable for a fall on its sidewalks, based on the city's ordinances. As a result, the plaintiff's attorney failed to file a complaint within six months after plaintiff's timely claim was rejected.
The court held that absent evidence of bad faith on the public entity's part, or a "confidential relationship" between the entity and plaintiff, entities cannot be estopped based on negligent misrepresentation of the law to a represented party. That is because:
"[W]here the material facts are
known to both parties and the pertinent provisions of law are
equally accessible to them, a party’s inaccurate statement of
the law or failure to remind the other party about a statute of
limitations cannot give rise to an estoppel."
Further:
"The invocation of estoppel is particularly inappropriate
where the party seeking it was represented by counsel at the
time of the misrepresentation of law."
The court affirmed summary judgment for the city.
Comments