Printable Format12-105b. Uniform procedure for payment of claims; presentment of claims; claims which could give rise to action under Kansas tort claims act; notice, contents, limitation on commencement of action; payments in advance of approval; auditing; approval. (a) All claims against a municipality must be presented in writing with a full account of the items, and no claim shall be allowed except in accordance with the provisions of this section. A claim may be the usual statement of account of the vendor or party rendering a service or other written statement showing the required information.
(b) (1) Claims for salaries or wages of officers or employees need not be signed by the officer or employee if a payroll claim is certified by the administrative head of a department or group of officers or employees or an authorized representative that the salaries or wages stated therein were contracted or incurred for the municipality under authority of law, that the amounts claimed are correct, due and unpaid and that the amounts are due as salaries and wages for services performed by the person named.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting the payment of employment incentive or retention bonuses authorized by K.S.A. 72-2244, and amendments thereto.
(c) No costs shall be recovered against a municipality or against an employee of a municipality in any action brought against the municipality or an employee of a municipality for any claims allowed in part unless the recovery shall be for a greater sum than the amount allowed, with the interest due. Subject to the terms of applicable insurance contracts, judgments and settlements obtained for claims recoverable pursuant to the Kansas tort claims act shall be presented for payment in accordance with this section or in such manner as the governing body may designate.
(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person having a claim against a municipality or against an employee of a municipality which could give rise to an action brought under the Kansas tort claims act shall file a written notice as provided in this subsection before commencing such action. The notice shall be filed with the clerk or governing body of the municipality and shall contain the following: (A) The name and address of the claimant and the name and address of the claimant's attorney, if any; (B) a concise statement of the factual basis of the claim, including the date, time, place and circumstances of the act, omission or event complained of; (C) the name and address of any public officer or employee involved, if known; (D) a concise statement of the nature and the extent of the injury claimed to have been suffered; and (E) a statement of the amount of monetary damages that is being requested. In the filing of a notice of claim, substantial compliance with the provisions and requirements of this subsection shall constitute valid filing of a claim. The contents of such notice shall not be admissible in any subsequent action arising out of the claim. Once notice of the claim is filed, no action shall be commenced until after the claimant has received notice from the municipality that it has denied the claim or until after 120 days has passed following the filing of the notice of claim, whichever occurs first. A claim is deemed denied if the municipality fails to approve the claim in its entirety within 120 days unless the interested parties have reached a settlement before the expiration of that period. No person may initiate an action against a municipality or against an employee of a municipality unless the claim has been denied in whole or part. Any action brought pursuant to the Kansas tort claims act shall be commenced within the time period provided for in the code of civil procedure or it shall be forever barred, except that, a claimant shall have no less than 90 days from the date the claim is denied or deemed denied in which to commence an action.
(2) This subsection shall not apply to any claim for recovery of damages against a governmental entity arising from childhood sexual abuse as defined in K.S.A. 60-523, and amendments thereto.
(e) Claims against a municipality that provide for a discount for early payment or for the assessment of a penalty for late payment may be authorized to be paid in advance of approval thereof by the governing body in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. The governing body may designate and authorize one or more of its officers or employees to pay any such claim made against the municipality in advance of its presentation to and approval by the governing body if payment of the amount of such claim is required before the next scheduled regular meeting of the governing body in order for the municipality to benefit from the discount provided for early payment or to avoid assessment of the penalty for late payment. Any officer or employee authorized to pay claims under this subsection shall keep an accurate record of all moneys paid and the purpose for which expended, and shall submit the record to the governing body at the next meeting thereof. Payments of claims by an officer or employee of the municipality under authority of this subsection are valid to the same extent as if the claims had been approved and ordered to be paid by the governing body.
(f) When an employee is required to travel on behalf of a municipality, the employee shall be entitled, upon complying with the provisions of the municipality's policies and regulations on employee travel, to timely payment of subsistence allowances and reimbursement for transportation and other related travel expenses incurred by the employee while on an approved travel status. When reimbursement through the regular claims approval process of the municipality will require more than 15 days from the date the reimbursement claim is filed, the claim may be authorized to be paid in advance of approval thereof by the governing body in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. The governing body may designate and authorize one or more of its officers or employees to pay any such claim made against the municipality in advance of its presentation to and approval by the governing body if payment of the amount of such claim is required before the next scheduled regular meeting of the governing body. Any officer or employee authorized to pay claims under this subsection shall keep an accurate record of all moneys paid and the purpose for which expended, and shall submit the record to the governing body at the next meeting thereof. Payments of claims by an officer or employee of the municipality under authority of this subsection are valid to the same extent as if the claims had been approved and ordered to be paid by the governing body.
(g) Claims submitted by members of a municipality's self-insured health plan may be authorized to be paid in advance of approval thereof by the governing body. Such claims shall be submitted to the administrative officer of such insurance plan.
(h) Claims against a school district for the purchase of food or gasoline while students are on a co-curricular or extra-curricular activity outside of the school boundaries may be paid in advance of approval thereof by the governing body in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. The governing body may designate and authorize one or more of its officers or employees to pay any such claim made against the school district in advance of its presentation to and approval by the governing body.
(i) Except as otherwise provided, before any claim is presented to the governing body or before any claim is paid by any officer or employee of the municipality under subsection (e) or (f), it shall be audited by the clerk, secretary, manager, superintendent, finance committee or finance department or other officer or officers charged by law to approve claims affecting the area of government concerned in the claim, and thereby approved in whole or in part as correct, due and unpaid.
History: L. 1968, ch. 375, § 2; L. 1970, ch. 67, § 3; L. 1979, ch. 186, § 18; L. 1980, ch. 59, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 62, § 1; L. 1983, ch. 56, § 1; L. 1987, ch. 353, § 9; L. 1998, ch. 129, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 86, § 2; L. 2002, ch. 167, § 3; L. 2004, ch. 10, § 1; L. 2015, ch. 28, § 2; L. 2023, ch. 28, § 1; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Governmental Liability: The Kansas Tort Claims Act [or The King Can Do Wrong]," John A. Hageman and Lee A. Johnson, 19 W.L.J. 260, 282 (1980).
"A Practitioner's Guide to Tort Reform of the '80s: What Happened and What's Left after Judicial Scrutiny," Jerry R. Palmer and Martha M. Snyder, 57 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 21, 27 (1988).
"Will Debtors Win the Battle as Creditors Win the War?: Retroactive Recovery of Attorney Fees in Consumer Credit Contracts in Kansas," Tamara Putnam and Jonathan Lautt, 34 W.L.J. 556, 568 (1995).
"Notice of Claims—Easy to Follow but Timing is Important," Maurice Ryan and Kathleen Lynch, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 36 (1995).
"The Kansas Tort Claims Act: The Evolving Parameters of Governmental Tort Liability," Terri Savely Bezek, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 30 (1997).
"Flooding of Private Property by the Construction of a Public Improvement: Isn't It Time for Kansas to Call It What It Really Is—A Compensable Taking?" Nicole M. Zomberg, 38 W.L.J. 209 (1998).
"Home Rule in a Nutshell," Sandra Craig McKenzie, 48 K.L.R. 1005 (2000).
"Survey of Kansas Tort Law: Part II," William E. Westerbeke, 50 K.L.R. 225 (2002).
"The Recreational Use Immunity of the Kansas Tort Claims Act: An Exception or the Rule?" Will Wohlford, 52 K.L.R. 211 (2003).
"Lawsuits Against Municipalities: Notice of Claims Under K.S.A. 12-105b," Stephen N. Six, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXVIII, No. 2, 16 (2004).
"Giving Notice of Tort Claims to Municipalities under K.S.A. 12-105b," Teresa L. Sittenauer, 74 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 24 (2005).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Eligibility to office in cities of the third class; conflict of interest. 81-88.
Cash-basis law; liability; estimate in budget to cover creation of indebtedness; uniform procedure for payment of claims. 82-14.
Limitations on expenditure of tax proceeds for ambulance services. 82-85.
Advancement of travel expenses to sheriff's officers. 82-100.
Public access to records pertaining to salary of county hospital administrator. 82-246.
Payment of expense claims by county commission. 83-4.
Sales exempt from Kansas retailers' sales tax. 83-171.
County hospitals; tax levies; handling hospital funds. 88-31.
Home rule powers; expenditures; public purpose. 91-53.
Expenditure of county money for legal counsel for county officer or employee under investigation by grand jury. 92-87.
Cities and municipalities; distribution of taxes; when. 92-123.
Board of education treasurer; appointment and duties; gate receipts. 94-39.
Payment for utility services by unified school district. 2001-09.
Consolidated unified school district is bound by neighborhood revitalization interlocal cooperation agreement of school district that is consolidated. 2008-19.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. No requirement that tort victims give notice of claims before filing a suit against municipality. Quigley v. General Motors Corp., 647 F. Supp. 656, 661 (1986).
2. New procedural statute retrospective in extending unexpired statute of limitations; not retrospective where reasonable time not given for notice. Stevenson v. Topeka City Council, 245 Kan. 425, 430, 781 P.2d 689 (1989).
3. Notice requirement did not deny former school superintendent of rights of due process and equal protection. Unified School Dist. No. 457 v. Phifer, 729 F. Supp. 1298, 1305 (1990).
4. Substantial compliance with statute required before filing action under tort claims act (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.). Tucking v. Board of Jefferson County Comm'rs, 14 Kan. App. 2d 442, 796 P.2d 1055 (1990).
5. Plaintiff properly appealed legislative action of board of county commissioners under this section. Larson v. Ruskowitz, 252 Kan. 963, 965, 850 P.2d 253 (1993).
6. Subsection (d) construed; notice of claim filed pursuant to this section extends statute of limitations to end of rejection period. Martin v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 18 Kan. App. 2d 149, 153, 848 P.2d 1000 (1993).
7. City attorney's statement rejecting plaintiff's claim was denial of claim for section's notice provision. Burgess v. West, 817 F. Supp. 1520, 1521, 1524 (1993).
8. Whether party's failure to comply with KTKA notice requirements for actions against municipality barred counterclaim examined. Kansas Mun. Gas Agency v. Vesta Energy Co., Inc., 840 F. Supp. 814, 822 (1993).
9. Whether county waived right to defense based on failure to present written claim examined. Daniels v. Bd. of Tr. of Herrington Mun. Hosp., 841 F. Supp. 363, 367 (1993).
10. Whether summary judgment proper when plaintiffs fail to comply with section's notice provisions examined. Wiggins v. Housing Authority of Kansas City, 19 Kan. App. 2d 610, 611, 873 P.2d 1377 (1994).
11. Whether written notice to municipality of claim under KTCA (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.) against municipal employees is a prerequisite to filing suit examined. King v. Pimentel, 20 Kan. App. 2d 579, 582, 586, 890 P.2d 1217 (1995).
12. Whether plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies for claims against municipalities before filing 42 U.S.C. 1983 action examined. Reidenbach v. U.S.D. #437, 878 F. Supp. 178, 181 (1995).
13. Defamation claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff failed to comply with KTCA (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.) notice requirements. Scheideman v. Shawnee County Bd. of County Com'rs, 895 F. Supp. 279, 281 (1995).
14. Terminated employee's notice of retaliatory discharge claim failed to substantially comply with section. Mitchell v. Coffey County Hosp., 903 F. Supp. 1415, 1427 (1995).
15. Federal title VII claims are not subject to KTCA notice requirements. Miller v. Brungardt, 904 F. Supp. 1215, 1217 (1995).
16. Requirement to provide municipality written notice did not apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Miller v. Brungardt, 916 F. Supp. 1096, 1099 (1996).
17. Party with contract claim is not required to give notice to a municipality before filing suit. Johnson v. Board of Pratt County Comm'rs, 259 Kan. 305, 325, 913 P.2d 119 (1996).
18. Compliance not required prior to bringing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, but tort claim barred hereunder where failure to exhaust administrative remedy. Sage v. Williams, 23 Kan. App. 2d 624, 630, 631, 933 P.2d 775 (1997).
19. Spouse substantially complied with notice requirements to maintain tort action against municipality. Tank v. Chronister, 941 F. Supp. 969, 975 (1996).
20. Notice to city attorney did not substantially comply with notice requirements for KTCA (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.) tort claim against municipality. Huffman v. City of Prairie Village, Ks., 980 F. Supp. 1192, 1206 (1997).
21. Plaintiff's letters to defendant contained inadequate notice to bring tort suit against defendant. Carney v. City of Shawnee, 38 F. Supp.2d 905 (1999).
22. Trial court's dismissal with prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to comply with section's notice provisions reversed. Bell v. Kansas City, Kansas, Housing Authority, 268 Kan. 208, 210, 992 P.2d 1233 (1999).
23. Plaintiff's notice of tort claim substantially complied with subsection (d) requirements; trial court reversed. Smith v. Kennedy, 26 Kan. App. 2d 351, 352, 985 P.2d 715 (1999).
24. A municipal corporation may not waive statutory notice to sue requirements. Zeferjohn v. Shawnee County Sheriff's Dept., 26 Kan. App. 2d 379, 380, 988 P.2d 263 (1999).
25. Employee's failure to file statutory notice prior to filing suit precluded action against city. Dunegan v. City of Council Grove, Kan. Water Dept., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1205 (1999).
26. Failure to file claim against municipality under K.S.A. 12-105b is not cured by savings provisions of K.S.A. 60-518; written notice of claim is jurisdictional prerequisite. Gessner v. Phillips County Comm's, 270 Kan. 78, 11 P.3d 1131 (2000).
27. Service of notice of claim on superintendent of school district substantially complies with requirement of section. Orr v. Heiman, 270 Kan. 109, 12 P.3d 387 (2000).
28. Plaintiff county employee's failure to notify county of basis of claim precluded assertion of claim. Woodard v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Jefferson, 108 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1192 (2000).
29. State law tort claim precluded by party's failure to give city notice prior to commencement of suit. Ratts v. Board of County Com'r, Harvey County, KS., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1320 (2001).
30. Physician held to be employee of hospital; plaintiff was required to give notice of claim to municipal organization; summary judgment affirmed. Knorp v. Albert, 29 Kan. App. 2d 509, 28 P.3d 1024 (2001).
31. Once claim has been made and denied, party may not file another notice to extend statute of limitations. Shaffer v. City of Topeka, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1232, 57 P.3d 35 (2002).
32. Statute of limitations extended by time for filing of claim to receipt of denial, or 120 days, whichever occurs first. Cummings v. City of Lakin, 276 Kan. 858, 80 P.3d 356 (2003).
33. Party giving notice of claim under section will not be prejudiced if statute of limitations expires during 120 day rejection period. J.P. Asset Co. v. City of Wichita, 31 Kan. App. 2d 650, 70 P.3d 711 (2003).
34. KTCA (K.S.A. 75-6101 et seq.) did not extend the statute of limitations on claims where plaintiff failed to comply with section. Reindl v. City of Leavenworth, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1298 (2005).
35. Failure to file KTCA notice of claim precluded court from hearing negligence and wrongful death claims. Keehner v. Dunn, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1275 (2005).
36. Claim must be filed with governing body or clerk of municipality; letter to county counselor inadequate. Myers v. Board of Jackson County Comm'rs, 280 Kan. 869, 127 P.3d 319 (2006).
37. Plaintiff's failure to file written notice of claim against municipality deprives district court of jurisdiction. Kau Kau Take Home No. 1 v. City of Wichita, 281 Kan. 1185, 1190, 135 P.3d 1221 (2006).
38. Compliance with section is a jurisdictional prerequisite; savings statute (K.S.A. 60-518) did not permit plaintiff to refile after limitation period had run. Christopher v. State, 36 Kan. App. 2d 697, 699, 143 P.3d 685 (2006).
39. Notice requirement does not attach where defendant's actions amount to outrage outside scope of municipal employment. Reindl v. City of Leavenworth, Kansas, 443 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1236 (2006).
40. Plaintiff's claim dismissed pursuant to K.S.A. 12-105b for failure to follow statute. Dodge City Implement, Inc. v. Board of Barber County Comm'rs 38 Kan. App. 2d 348, 165 P.3d 1060 (2007).
41. Mentioned in wrongful death action involving statute of limitation issue as to when cause of death ascertainable. Dreiling v. Davis, 38 Kan. App. 2d 997, 1000, 176 P.3d 197 (2007).
42. Cited; county objected to the validity of service in motion to dismiss. Vandeventer v. Guimond, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1258 (2007).
43. State law claims; plaintiff failed to comply with notice requirements of K.S.A. 12-105b resulting in no court jurisdiction. Continental Coal, Inc. v. Cunningham, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1284-1286 (2008).
44. Plaintiff did not substantially comply with K.S.A. 12-105b regarding claims against county and township. Dodge City Implement, Inc. v. Board of Barber County Comm'rs, 288 Kan. 619, 205 P.3d 1265 (2009).
45. Substantial compliance is discussed and applied. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Board of Lyon County Comm'rs, 41 Kan. App. 2d 346, 202 P.3d 54 (2009).
46. Any fraud claim against a school district would be subject to notice requirement of K.S.A. 12-105b. Knop v. Gardner Edgerton U.S.D. No. 231, 41 Kan. App. 2d 698, 205 P.3d 755 (2009).
47. Arrestee's actions against police officer within scope of officer's employment and required arrestee to comply with notification requirements of the Kansas tort claims act. Phillips v. Humble, 587 F.3d 1267 (10 th Cir. 2009).
48. Original petition was premature and no subject matter jurisdiction; amended petition satisfied jurisdictional requirements. Steed v. McPherson Area Solid Waste Utility, 43 Kan. App. 2d 75, 221 P.3d 1157 (2010).
49. School employee's failure to provide notice required under Kansas law prior to filing tort claim against a municipality warranted dismissal of employee's claims. Blackman v. U.S.D. 259 School Dist., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (D. Kan. 2011).
50. Litigants with a cause of action for racial profiling, created by K.S.A. 22-4611, must comply with the notice requirements in K.S.A. 12-105b(d) for claims against a municipality. Garcia v. Anderson, 46 Kan. App. 2d 1094, 268 P.3d 1248 (2012).
51. A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a prematurely filed lawsuit. Sleeth v. Sedan City Hospital, 298 Kan. 853, 317 P.3d 782 (2014).
52. Statutory notice requirement of the Kansas tort claims act applies only to lawsuits against municipalities, not to lawsuits against municipal employees. Whaley v. Sharp, 301 Kan. 192, 201, 343 P.3d 63 (2014).
53. The requirement that a plaintiff give notice to a municipality does not apply to municipal employees. Arnold v. City of Olathe, 413 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1112 (D. Kan. 2019). F. Supp. 2d.
54. Claimant did not comply with statutory notice requirement where letters were addressed to the city attorney. Farmers Bank & Trust v. Homestead Cmty. Dev., 58 Kan. App. 2d 877, 897, 476 P.3d 1 (2020). Kan. App. 2d.
55. The statutory requirements for notice of claim must be met before a court can acquire jurisdiction over a municipality. McLinn v. Thomas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 535 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D. Kan. 2021).