Bobby Price sued the City of Moultrie, alleging that he sustained losses in a fire on his property that occurred due to Moultrie’s negligent maintenance of a power line. Moultrie moved for summary judgment, arguing that Price failed to provide a proper ante litem notice as required by OCGA § 36-33-5 b. After the trial court denied the motion, Moultrie filed an application for interlocutory appeal, which we granted. Moultrie argues the trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the record, we find that the ante litem notice delivered to Moultrie was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 36-33-5. Thus, the trial court erred in denying Moultrie’s motion for summary judgment and reverse. We recognize that OCGA § 36-33-5 “is in derogation of common law, and must be strictly construed against the municipality,” and consider the following evidence. Citation and punctuation omitted. Canberg v. City of Toccoa , 245 Ga. App. 75, 77 1 535 SE2d 854 2000. Price owns property in Moultrie, Georgia, where he ran a small business. On July 23, 2006, a fire occurred at Price’s property and a corroded electric line was found to be the cause of the fire. The next day, Price and his insurance agent contacted the city, and an employee instructed them to contact another city employee who handled insurance issues. The second city employee gave Price “all the information that he needed about filing a claim,” including the telephone number of Moultrie’s insurance claims representative. The insurance representative instructed Price to “fax his losses and they’d look into it.” Price and his agent faxed to the insurer a fire report prepared by the Moultrie Fire Department and an inventory list of items destroyed in the fire. After Price received a letter from the insurer rejecting his claim, he sued Moultrie on June 25, 2008, for property damages resulting from the city’s negligence.
Satisfaction of the ante litem notice requirement is a condition precedent to bringing suit against a municipal corporation for damages resulting from injuries to person or property. OCGA § 36-33-5 a. See also Harris-Jackson v. City of Cochran , 287 Ga. App. 722, 723 652 SE2d 607 2007. OCGA § 36-33-5 b requires a claimant “within six months of the happening of the event upon which a claim . . . is predicated” to present the claim in writing to the municipality “stating the time, place, . . . extent of injury, . . . and the negligence that caused the injury .” Emphasis supplied. The purpose of the ante litem requirement is to give the municipality “the opportunity to investigate potential claims, ascertain evidence, and avoid unnecessary litigation.” Davis v. City of Forsyth , 275 Ga. App. 747, 748 1 621 SE2d 495 2005. Substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required. Id. To comply substantially, the notice must contain sufficient information so that the City can investigate the injuries alleged and determine if the claim should be settled without litigation. Id; see Bush v. Albany , 125 Ga. App. 558 188 SE2d 245 1972 notice detailed that appellant fell on a city street into a hole that “was dangerous in character, unlighted, and without barrier to warn or protect foot passengers along said street; petitioner did not know of the existence of the said hole, and was without fault in the transaction.”
