Legal Topics

Torts — Counties — Premises liability — Trip and fall on sidewalk — Sovereign immunity — Waiver — Conditions precedent — Notice — Plaintiff failed to satisfy notice requirements of section 768.28 where description of accident in claim letter was not sufficient to allow county to investigate claim — Premature suit — Suit filed less than 7 months after claim letter was sent to county and before county denied claim was premature — Sending claim letter to Florida Department of Financial Services does not constitute notice to county — Action is dismissed without prejudice

Feb 17th, 2026 in by admin

Torts — Counties — Premises liability — Trip and fall on sidewalk — Sovereign immunity — Waiver — Conditions precedent — Notice — Plaintiff failed to satisfy notice requirements of section 768.28 where description of accident in claim letter was not sufficient to allow county to investigate claim — Premature suit — Suit filed less than 7 months after claim letter was sent to county and before county denied claim was premature — Sending claim letter to Florida Department of Financial Services does not constitute notice to county — Action is dismissed without prejudice

RANDY FERREIRA, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., Defendant. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 2024-023633-CA-01. Section CA11. September 18, 2025. Spencer Eig, Judge. Counsel: Anthony J. Cabrera, Travis R. Hoopingarner, and Scott Morrison, Jr., Cabrera Hoopingarner, P.A., Miami, for Plaintiff. Richard Schevis, Assistant County Attorney, Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office, Miami, for Defendant.ORDER GRANTING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Miami-Dade County’s Motion For Summary Judgment. The Court held a hearing on this motion on September 8, 2025, via Zoom, and heard from all parties of record. Having considered the motion, Plaintiff’s response brief, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the County’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses this case without prejudice.

1. This is a personal-injury lawsuit in which the Plaintiff claims he was injured on a sidewalk in Miami-Dade County. Plaintiff sued Miami-Dade County alleging that it was negligent in failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.

2. Florida Statute § 768.28(6) sets conditions a claimant must meet before suing the County. The claimant must provide written notice that describes the claim with enough detail to allow the County to investigate; and wait until the County denies the claim or six months pass without a decision. If these requirements are not met, sovereign immunity is not waived and the court lacks jurisdiction.

3. Miami-Dade County moved for summary judgment asserting that its sovereign immunity has not been waived in this action because (a) Plaintiff failed to give sufficient presuit notice of his claim by failing to identify the location of his accident, and (b) Plaintiff filed this lawsuit prematurely, before six months had past and before the County denied his claim.

4. On the first issue, Florida’s partial-waiver-of-sovereign-immunity statute requires a person asserting a claim against a governmental entity to present a claim in writing before bringing a lawsuit. § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2024). Although there is no specific form, the notice must describe the occurrence with sufficient detail to enable the governmental entity to investigate the claim. Metro. Dade County v. Coats, 559 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Franklin v. Palm Beach County, 534 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (explaining that the written notice of claim must sufficiently describe or identify the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it); LaRiviere v. So. Broward Hosp. Dist., 889 So.2d 972, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D11a] (noting that “the notice, in any form, must be sufficiently direct and specific to reasonably put the department on notice of the existence of the claim and demand”); Vargas v. City Of Fort Myers, 137 So.3d 1031, 1033-1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D165a] (“The notice must be sufficiently direct and specific to reasonably put the department on notice of the existence of the claim and demand.”); Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So.2d 589, 591-592 (Fla. 1956) (holding that “a municipality is entitled to a reasonable notice of a pending claim against it in order to enable the City to make a thorough investigation of the claim before admitting or denying liability in connection with a demand that might require the expenditure of public funds”).

5. The record evidence in this case shows that Plaintiff’s claim letter to Miami-Dade County asserted that Plaintiff was injured as a result of a defective or broken sign in the middle of the road and described the location of the incident as “122 Street with 156 Ave Kendall, FL.” The County presented evidence that “122 Street with 156 Ave Kendall, FL” is not an identifiable location and that using this information, the County was not able to find the location of the alleged incident and thus was unable to investigate the claim.

6. In response to this point, Plaintiff argues that the law does not require a claimant to provide an exact address or to identify the location of a claimant’s accident in minute detail. In support, Plaintiff cites to Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1956) and Otero v. City of Hialeah, 731 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D986a]. In the Magee case, the claimant described the location of the accident as the “south side of 6th Street in Jacksonville between Market Street and Hubbard Street [which is] a distance of approximately 160 yards.” Magee, 87 So. 2d at 591. That amount of specificity was deemed sufficient to enable the governmental entity to investigate the claim, and thus it satisfied the notice requirement under Florida Statute § 768.28. In the Otero case, the claimant described the location of the accident as being in front of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, but the accident actually occurred in front of the Immaculate Conception Catholic School. Otero, 731 So. 2d at 117. When the governmental entity requested additional information, the claimant responded, clarifying the claim. Id. That amount of specificity was deemed sufficient to enable the governmental entity to investigate the claim, and thus it satisfied the notice requirement under Florida Statute § 768.28.

7. In this case, the only record evidence shows that Plaintiff’s description of the accident location (i.e., 122 Street with 156 Ave., Kendall, FL) was not an identifiable location and based on this description the County was not able to identify the location of Plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to the contrary.

8. Because the record evidence establishes that Plaintiff’s description of the accident location in his presuit claim letter was insufficient to enable the County to investigate the claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the notice requirement under Florida Statute § 768.28. Summary judgment is appropriate on this point.

9. Turning to the second issue — whether Plaintiff filed this lawsuit prematurely. Florida’s partial-waiver-of-sovereign-immunity statute requires a claimant to submit a claim in writing to the County and wait until the County denies the claim before filing a lawsuit. § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2024). The claim is deemed denied if the County fails to act on the claim for six months. § 768.28(6)(d), Fla. Stat. (2024).

10. Miami-Dade County cites to record evidence that it first received Plaintiff’s claim letter on September 10, 2024. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 12, 2024. Although the County had not yet denied the claim, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit three months after the September 10, 2024 claim letter.

11. In response to this point, Plaintiff argues that he first sent a claim letter to the County in March 2024, which is eight months before he filed suit. Plaintiff cites to a claim letter dated March 29, 2024. But that letter was sent to the Florida Department of Financial Services in Tallahassee, Florida.

12. The County presented evidence that Miami-Dade County is a separate and independent governmental entity from the Florida Department of Financial Services; that the Miami-Dade County Risk Management Division does not maintain an office in Tallahassee, Florida, and has never done so; and that notices of claims directed to the Florida Department of Financial Services in Tallahassee are not received by Miami-Dade County or its Risk Management Division, unless separately transmitted directly to Miami-Dade County.

13. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s March 29, 2024 claim letter sent to the Florida Department of Financial Services in Tallahassee does not constitute notice to Miami-Dade County. Cf. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) [20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S225a].

14. The Court further finds that Miami-Dade County first received Plaintiff’s claim letter on September 10, 2024; that Plaintiff filed suit less than six months from this date and before the County denied his claim. Given this timing, the Court finds that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit prematurely and contrary to the plain language of Florida Statute § 768.28(6). Summary judgment is appropriate on this point.

For the foregoing reasons, and after considering the motion for summary judgment, the response brief, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants Miami-Dade County’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses this action without prejudice.