The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a woman injured on a Manitou Springs sidewalk could not sue the allegedly responsible entity, the city of Colorado Springs, even though she did not learn until too late of an agreement that made the city liable for the defective infrastructure.

Jaimi J. Mostellar argued that Manitou Springs had failed to disclose the existence of an intergovernmental agreement involving Colorado Springs for more than a year after she notified Manitou Springs of her injuries. Although Mostellar quickly pivoted to suing Colorado Springs, the state’s Court of Appeals dismissed her lawsuit because she was under a strict obligation to alert Colorado Springs within 182 days of her injury.

One appellate judge suggested that the legislature consider changing the law to avoid the alleged gamesmanship in Mostellar’s case. In an April 13 opinion, the Supreme Court agreed with that suggestion; at the same time, it found Mostellar’s lawsuit was forever barred.

The “result that we reach today may, to some, seem harsh and inequitable because Mostellar and her counsel appear to have acted in good faith and tried to comply,” wrote Justice Richard L. Gabriel. “Although we are not unsympathetic to this argument, we are constrained to follow the plain language of (the law), and any effort to remedy inequity that might result from the application of the statute’s plain language is more appropriately directed to our General Assembly.”

Mostellar fell in Manitou Springs after tripping on the protruding base of a removed bus stop sign. She initially alerted Manitou Springs of her injuries well within the deadline required by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. However, Manitou Springs did not disclose to Mostellar until more than a year later that Colorado Springs was, through an intergovernmental agreement, seemingly responsible for the infrastructure that caused Mostellar’s fall.

After Mostellar named Colorado Springs as a defendant in a new lawsuit, District Court Judge Eric Bentley allowed her to proceed despite the notification deadline. The city had not shown Mostellar, “with reasonable diligence, could or should have discovered (the agreement) before Manitou Springs’ counsel informed her of it,” he wrote.

However, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel reversed his order. It concluded the immunity law required Mostellar to fully comply with the 182-day deadline for alerting Colorado Springs, and she had not done so.

Judge Rebecca R. Freyre, while agreeing with the panel’s decision to dismiss Mostellar’s lawsuit, wrote separately to advocate for adjusting the hard 182-day notice requirement so that future government defendants cannot defeat legitimate lawsuits through their own actions.

Mostellar’s case illustrates “the real possibility that public entities can manipulate the jurisdictional 182-day notice requirement by failing to timely inform a plaintiff of intergovernmental agreements,” she warned.

During oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez and Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter both wondered whether it was realistic for Mostellar’s attorney to find the intergovernmental agreement within 182 days, or whether, as he argued, it would have been “impossible.”

“I think we can safely assume that those types of ownership documents would necessarily be public documents,” said Márquez, which a public records request could reveal.

Yet, “part of your point, I think, is that it took them a year-and-a-half to figure this out, so how on earth could you have figured this out in 182 days, correct?” asked Berkenkotter.

“I don’t know how I could have done better than Manitou. Manitou knows everything about Manitou,” said Mostellar’s attorney, Mark H. Kane.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that Mostellar had 182 days to notify Colorado Springs after her injury, and the deadline was non-negotiable. Further, the justices did not agree that Manitou Springs’ alleged concealment precluded Mostellar from identifying the correct defendant in time.

“For example, she has not explained why she could not have submitted an open records request or researched how transit systems are organized in Manitou Springs, either of which could have revealed Colorado Springs’ involvement,” wrote Gabriel. Moreover, “any misconduct by Manitou Springs is irrelevant to Mostellar’s statutory duties toward Colorado Springs, the party entitled to notice here.”

Mosteller’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Manitou Springs immediately respond to an inquiry about its failure to disclose the agreement with Colorado Springs sooner.

The case is Mostellar v. City of Colorado Springs.