Cited by

)’s attendant obligation to provide the “facts supporting” the settlement amount compels claimants to provide a “factual foundation to permit the entity to evaluate the amount claimed,” thus ensuring that “claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that constitute ‘quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.’” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296 ¶ 9 (); ¶ 23 (2009) (stating that a claimant complies with § 12-821.01(A) “by providing the factual foundation that the claimant [subjectively] regards as adequat

ion 12-821.01(A)’s attendant obligation to provide the “facts supporting” the settlement amount compels claimants to provide a “factual foundation to permit the entity to evaluate the amount claimed,” thus ensuring that “claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that constitute ‘quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.’” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296 ¶ 9 (); ¶ 23 (2009) (stating that a claimant complies with § 12-821.01(A) “by providing the factual foundation that the claimant [subjectively] reg

¶ 24 In his reply brief, , for the px-oposition that substantial compliance satisfies A.R.S.

We find misplaced Beynon’s , inasmuch as that ease preceded by four years the enactment of § 12-821.01.

See, -64 , -31 (App.1990) (finding adequate a claim letter that provided an “educated estimate” that damages would be “not less than $125,000”).

In Young v. City of Scottsdale, , to adopt a reasonable estimate standard for the sum certain requirement.

ement that a notice of claim provide facts in support of the amount demanded in the notice is meant, in addition to allowing the governmental entity “to evaluate the amount claimed,” to “ensure[] that claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that constitute ‘quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.’” Deer Valley, 152 P.3d at 493, 6 Given the Joneses’ detailed recitation of James’s injuries and the effect those injuries have had and will have on his life, as well as the description of his parent

This latter requirement ensures that claimants will not demand unfounded amounts that constitute “quick unrealistic exaggerated demands.”

¶ 14 Plaintiffs argue that this construction is erroneous because of this court’s reference to the notice of claim procedure as “an administrative claim”

nor abrogates the discovery rule.

Citing Brooks , this court has also recently stated that “[t]he idea is to provide the governmental agency with information so that it has an opportunity to settle a citizen’s claim or to litigate it.”