Appeals Court Considers Whether Presentment Letter Gave City Enough Notice of Negligence Claim

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument over whether a presentment letter about property damage met the particularity required by the Massachusetts Claims Act and related case law.

Counsel for Xi Ling Wang, John Matus, argued the presentment letter identified the legal basis (damage to property caused by municipal construction), named specific inspectors with whom the plaintiff had communicated, and described damage to the subfloor and structural elements — enough, he said, to allow municipal officials to investigate and to satisfy Martin’s flexible standard for sufficiency.

City counsel (Daniel Script) countered that the letter never used the word 'negligence,' provided no date for the incident and left unclear whether the alleged harm arose from sewer‑pipe maintenance, inspection error, or other municipal conduct. He invoked Gilmore and subsequent decisions that, in his view, require a presentment that puts municipal law departments on firm notice of the precise claim.

The panel explored whether the lulling exception applies (affirmative conduct by a defendant that causes a plaintiff to delay curing a defective presentment) and whether the presentment in this record could reasonably be cured by investigation given the named inspectors and alleged work orders. Counsel also debated Simmons (a 2021 appeals decision raised by the court) and other authorities on how exacting a presentment must be.

The court took the case under advisement.