The Court is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The proposed revision does not solve a number of problems and creates some new ones.
1. Is it reasonable or sensible to expect someone that is filing a Notice of Claim for something like "use of "excessive force" to deliver the Notice of Claim a Police Officer's "dwelling house or usual place of abode? (Rule 4.1 (d))
2. Can the State legally restrict access to public records that give the addresses of public safety personnel or government employees when that information is required for service of a Notice of Claim to an Individual? (Rule 4.1(d))
3. How would a person filing a Notice of Claim upon an Individual know if "an agent is authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process"? (Rule 4.1 (d))
4. How would a person filing a Notice of Claim get Court approval to use "Alternative or Substituted Services"? (Rule 4.1 (m))
5. Under draft Rule 4.1(h)(4)(A) what statutes designate who is to receive service of process and how is the name of the designated person disclosed?
6. Under draft Rule 4.1(h)(4)(B) if the entity has designated an individual to receive service but the Notice of Claim is filed with "the chief executive officer(s), or alternatively, the official secretary, clerk or recording officer" does this meet the service requirements?
I would really appreciate answers to these question or revisions to the draft that eliminate them.
There are more significant problems with the Notice of Claim Statute that have been raised previously in the forum. A cursory examination of the number of Court cases related to the Notice of Claim Statute shows that it is a trap for the unwary and costly for the Courts.
The proposed revision does not solve many of the problems. Other states, Washington for example, have come up with better solutions. Why not fix the problems?
Kevin Greif
1140 North Opal Drive
Prescott, AZ 86303
(928)776-2422
[email protected]