Fuqua v. Alpine School District

1. The Honorable Russell W. Bench, Senior Judge, sat by special
appointment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code Jud.
Admin. R. 11-201(6).
2014 UT App 81
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
HANNAH FUQUA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant and Appellee.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140023-CA
Filed April 10, 2014
Fourth District Court, Spanish Fork Department
The Honorable Donald J. Eyre Jr.
No. 130300126
Kevin J. Sutterfield, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Peggy E. Stone, Attorneys for Appellee
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, STEPHEN L. ROTH, and
RUSSELL W. BENCH.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Hannah Fuqua appeals the district court’s December 10,
2013 order granting Alpine School District’s motion for summary
judgment. Fuqua argues that the district court erred in determining
that her action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
This matter is before the court on Alpine’s motion for summary
disposition on the basis that the grounds for review are too
insubstantial to merit further proceedings.

Fuqua v. Alpine School District
20140023-CA 2 2014 UT App 81
¶2 “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
for correctness and afford no deference to the court’s legal
conclusions.” Salt Lake City Corp. v. Big Ditch Irrigation Co., 2011 UT
33, ¶ 18, 258 P.3d 539. The Utah Governmental Immunity Act
requires a plaintiff to file a notice of claim with a governmental
entity before filing a lawsuit. See Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-401(2)
(LexisNexis 2011). The governmental entity must then approve or
deny the claim within sixty days. Id. § 63G-7-403(1). “A claim is
considered to be denied if, at the end of the 60-day period, the
governmental entity or its insurance carrier has failed to approve
or deny the claim.” Id. § 63G-7-403(1)(b). If the claimant decides to
sue, she must then bring an action within one year after denial of
the claim. See id. § 63G-7-403(2)(b).
¶3 In the present case, Fuqua mailed her notice of claim to
Alpine on June 15, 2012. Alpine never sent Fuqua notice indicating
that it was accepting or denying her claim; accordingly, the claim
was deemed to be denied sixty days later, on August 14, 2012.
Fuqua had one year from August 14, 2012, to file her action,
meaning that the complaint needed to be filed no later than August
14, 2013. See Harward v. Utah Cnty., 2000 UT App 222, ¶ 8, 6 P.3d
1140 (concluding that under the Utah Governmental Immunity
Act’s one-year statute of limitation, a complaint filed on September
5, 1997, was untimely when the claim was deemed denied on
September 4, 1996); see also Greer v. Big 5 Corp., 2009 UT App 103U,
para. 2 (concluding that a four-year statute of limitation barred an
action filed on December 2, 2005, when the accident giving rise to
the action occurred on December 1, 2001). Fuqua did not file her
complaint until August 15, 2013. Therefore, the complaint was filed
one day after the statute of limitations had expired. Accordingly,
the district court correctly granted Alpine’s motion for summary
judgment because Fuqua’s action was barred by the statute of
limitations.
¶4 Affirmed.