Terborg v. Town of Payson, No. CV-25-0317-PR (September 24, 2026) (C.J. Timmer) https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2026/CV250317PR.pdf?ver=zd3k-fpO6F5AEGRrrz-aQg%3d%3d

WHERE WRITTEN AND NUMERICAL AMOUNT DEMANDED IN NOTICE OF CLAIM CONFLICT A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A)'s SPECIFIC AMOUNT REQUIREMENT IS NOT MET AND NOTICE OF CLAIM IS DEFICIENT

Plaintiff was mistakenly attacked and injured by a police dog working for the Payson Police Department. He filed a Notice of Claim pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) offering to settle for “one hundred thousand dollars ($250,000).” The town of Payson did not respond. Plaintiff sued. Payson moved to dismiss claiming the conflicting amounts set forth in the Notice of Claim did not comply with the statutory requirement that plaintiff articulate a “specific amount for which the claim can be settled.”  The Gila County Superior Court granted defendant's motion as a motion for summary judgment. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and vacated the court of appeals decision.

Section 12‑821.01(A) sets a fixed threshold for notices of claim:

a public entity must be able to identify a claimant's settlement

offer from the notice of claim itself.  The statute does not require

a public entity to apply contract principles to discern the claimant's

intent, investigate that intent, or assist the claimant in crafting a

statutorily compliant notice A notice of claim is not a contract; it

is a statutory prerequisite for filing a damages lawsuit against a

public entity.  .  .  .

Rather, the statute requires a claimant to state a single, identifiable

amount in the notice of claim that unequivocally communicates

what amount will resolve the claim.