In Mostellar v. City of Colorado Springs, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed the notice requirements under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”), specifically section 24-10-109(1). The central issue presented was whether the 182-day notice period begins when a claimant discovers their injury or when they later learn which public entity is responsible. The court held that the statutory notice period is triggered by the date of injury, not by a later disclosure identifying the proper governmental defendant.
The case arose after Mostellar was injured on August 26, 2021, when she tripped over the base of a removed bus stop sign on a sidewalk in Manitou Springs. She provided notice to Manitou Springs within the required 182-day period. However, more than a year later, Manitou Springs disclosed for the first time that, under an intergovernmental agreement, the City of Colorado Springs—not Manitou Springs—was responsible for maintaining the area where the injury occurred.
Mostellar subsequently attempted to pursue her claim against Colorado Springs, but she had not provided that entity with notice within 182 days of her injury. The court emphasized that the CGIA requires strict compliance with its notice provision, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Because Mostellar undisputedly knew of her injury on the date it occurred, the statutory deadline to notify Colorado Springs ran from that date, regardless of her lack of knowledge about the proper party.
Although the court acknowledged the seemingly harsh and inequitable result—particularly given Manitou Springs’ delayed disclosure—it concluded that it was bound by the plain language of the statute. The court further rejected arguments that equitable principles or impossibility should excuse noncompliance, finding no evidence that Mostellar was prevented from complying with the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed dismissal of her claims against Colorado Springs for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Read the entire opinion here.