On Feb. 13, 2024, Plaintiff Demetrius Lindsey claimed he sustained personal injuries when the NJ Transit (NJT) bus on which he was a passenger was involved in an accident. That day, the bus driver filled out an incident report and NJT prepared a form noting Lindsey’s complaints and visit to the ER. Lindsey retained an attorney and on Feb. 22 the attorney sent NJT a letter of representation, identifying himself, Lindsey, the location of the incident, and the fact that Lindsey sustained injuries in the Feb. 13 accident. The letter also requested any documents and reports created as a result of the accident. On May 31, 108 days after the accident, Lindsey’s attorney sent a second letter with a request a “claim be initiated” on Lindsey’s behalf. NJT and Lindsey’s attorney exchanged correspondence until Feb. 12, 2025, one day shy of the accident’s one year anniversary, when Lindsey’s attorney filed a motion for leave to file a late Tort Claims Notice. The issue in Lindsey v. NJ Transit Corp., 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2142 (App. Div. Sept. 29, 2026) was whether the content of Lindsey’s attorney’s Feb. 22, 2024, letter to NJT contained sufficient information to serve as a Notice of Claim under New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act (TCA).
The guiding principle of the TCA is that immunity is the rule and liability the exception for claims against public entities. An element of the TCA requires a claimant serve the public entity with a Notice of Claim in 90 days of the claim’s accrual date – the date of the claimed injury. The TCA requires a proper Notice of Claim contain the following critical information: the claimant’s name and address, the date and circumstances of the incident, a description of the injury, and the amount of claimed damages. The failure to serve the public entity with a Notice of Claim in 90 days from the accrual date will forever bar the claimant from filing a lawsuit against the public entity for that injury. However, to avoid that harsh result, a claimant may move for leave to file a late Notice of Claim if he is able to show “extraordinary circumstances” caused him to miss the 90 day deadline with no prejudice to the public entity.
In his motion for leave, Plaintiff argued that NJT was on notice of his claim shortly after the incident due to his attorney’s Feb. 22 letter and the reports created by the bus driver and NJT. NJT opposed, arguing the TCA required a compliant Notice of Claim, and the Feb. 22 letter did not serve that purpose in fact or intent; evidenced by Lindsey’s attorney’s statement in the May 31 letter, that a “claim be initiated.” The parties agreed the claim accrued on Feb. 13, 2024, making a Notice of Claim due by May 13, 2024. However, the motion court sided with NJT that the Feb. 22 letter did not meet the standard required to satisfy a Notice of Claim to properly put NJT on notice, thereby denying Plaintiff’s motion, barring Plaintiff’s claim and opportunity to file suit. Plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Division also focused on Plaintiff’s Feb. 22 letter and performed an analysis to determine whether that letter was in “substantial compliance” with the Notice of Claim requirements. Applying these elements, the Appellate Division determined the Feb. 22 letter fell short and upheld the motion court’s denial of the motion for leave. A court weighing substantial compliance will consider whether the substance of the notice given was both in writing and within the 90 day window and, while the notice may lack the specifics to satisfy the strict requirement of the TCA, the missing details did not deprive the public entity of effective and actual notice. The “substantial compliance” analysis considers the lack of prejudice to the public entity, steps taken by the claimant to comply with the TCA, general compliance with the purpose of the statute, reasonable notice of the claim, and a reasonable explanation why the claimant didn’t strictly follow the rule.
Applying these elements, the Appellate Division determined the Feb. 22 letter fell short and upheld the motion court’s denial of the motion. It found the only critical information contained in the letter was Lindsey’s name, the date of the incident, the location of the incident, and the fact the incident occurred. The letter lacked any reference that Lindsey intended to state a claim against NJT, the specifics of the claim, or what injuries Lindsey sustained. Further, Lindsey’s attorney’s reference in the May letter of his intent to “initiate a claim” only established that the Feb. 22 letter did not have that purpose. Finally, the fact that NJT possessed internal documentation does not rise to the level of a claim; the Court found that no public entity has the obligation to review its internal documents and “put itself on notice that a potential plaintiff failed to supply.”
The key takeaways here are that a TCA Notice of Claim must be the notice of a claim, not the notice that a potential claimant is represented by an attorney, is requesting records, and may have the basis for a claim. Further, substantial compliance is narrowly drawn; while it forgives some technical defects in timely written Notices, it will not permit a missing or late notice or notices lacking crucial information.
