Jaimi J. Mostellar v. City of Colorado Springs, a Colorado municipality.

── Jaimi J. Mostellar v. City of Colorado Springs, a Colorado municipality. ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 22 Jaimi J. Mostellar, Petitioner v. City of Colorado Springs, a Colorado municipality. Respondent No. 24SC761 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc April 13, 2026           Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 23CA1908          Judgment Affirmed           Attorneys for Petitioner: Kane Law Firm, P.C. Mark H. Kane Colorado Springs, Colorado           Attorneys for Respondent: Marc Smith, Acting City Attorney W. Erik Lamphere, Division Chief Colorado Springs, Colorado           Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League: Robert D. Sheesley Rachel Bender Denver, Colorado 2           JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ, JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE SAMOUR, JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined. 3           OPINION           GABRIEL JUSTICE          ¶1 We granted certiorari to consider whether (1) the court of appeals division below erred in reversing the district court's order denying the City of Colorado Springs' motion to dismiss, in which the district court had found that the deadline to provide notice under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act ("CGIA") did not begin to run until the City of Manitou Springs informed Jaimi J. Mostellar of the intergovernmental agreement that made Colorado Springs potentially liable for her accident; and (2) the CGIA should require strict compliance when such compliance is impossible based on one public entity's failure to inform the claimant of the potential liability of another public entity.          ¶2 Addressing the second issue first, we conclude that this case does not implicate a scenario in which strict compliance with the CGIA was impossible or a defendant prevented strict compliance by misleading a plaintiff. In this case, Colorado Springs, which was the entity entitled to notice, did nothing to inhibit Mostellar's compliance with the CGIA. Accordingly, strict compliance with the CGIA's plain terms was required.          ¶3 Having thus decided, we turn to the first issue on which we granted certiorari, and we conclude that under section 24-10-109(1), C.R.S. (2025), of the CGIA, the notice period began to run on August 26, 2021, the date on which Mostellar was injured, not on the date that Manitou Springs informed her of the 4 intergovernmental agreement. Accordingly, Mostellar's notice of claim was untimely, and the division correctly determined that her claim must be dismissed.          ¶4 We therefore affirm the division's judgment.          I. Facts and Procedural History          ¶5 Mostellar alleged that she was injured on a public sidewalk in Manitou Springs on August 26, 2021, when she tripped and fell over the base of an old bus stop sign that had been removed. She then provided Manitou Springs with timely notice of her injury pursuant to section 24-10-109(1) of the CGIA, which requires "person[s] claiming to have suffered an injury by a public entity" to file written notice with that public entity "within one hundred eighty-two days after the date of the discovery of the injury."          ¶6 Over the ensuing months, Manitou Springs never indicated that it was not the real party in interest. In April 2023, however, over a year and a half after Mostellar's fall, Manitou Springs informed Mostellar, for the first time, that pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement between it and Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs was responsible for the condition of the sign (and, thus, the condition of the sidewalk on which Mostellar was injured).          ¶7 Forty days later, on May 30, 2023, Mostellar provided Colorado Springs with notice under the CGIA. By that point, however (and even by the day on 5 which Mostellar was advised of Colorado Springs' involvement), section 24-10-109(1