The Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order denying the City of Houston’s motion for summary judgment, holding that USAA presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue concerning whether the city had actual notice of a tort claim.
City of Houston v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company (No. 14-25-00649-CV; August 11, 2026) arose from a dispute between the city, whose employee collided another vehicle driven by USAA’s insured, and the insurer. The collision occurred on February 2, 2023. USAA sent the city notice of the tort claim arising from the collision on May 30, 2023, and the city received it on June 8, 2023. The parties don’t dispute that the city got the notice outside of the 90-day period prescribed the city’s charter and ordinances. On January 21, 2025, USAA sued the city, alleging that it gave notice as required by the Tort Claims Act and that the city’s employee negligently caused the accident, causing $6,738.41 costs to repair. The city filed a traditional MSJ, asserting that governmental immunity was not waived because of untimely notice. The trial court denied the city’s motion. The city sought interlocutory relief.
In an opinion by Justice Hart, the court of appeals affirmed. As the court observed, the “TTCA waives governmental immunity for certain tort claims provided that the claimant gives notice of the claim within six months of the incident.” § 101.101(a)-(b), CPRC. The city’s charter, however, requires written notice of a personal injury claim within 90 days. But if the governmental entity has “actual notice” of the claim, it waives the notice requirement. “Actual notice” under the TTCA exists if the governmental entity “has subjective knowledge of (1) a death, injury, or property damage; (2) the governmental unit’s fault that produced or contributed to the death, injury, or property damage; and (3) the identity of the parties involved” (citation omitted).
USAA argued that the city had actual knowledge of the claim. The city countered that it didn’t have actual notice because the crash report said that the insured was not injured in the accident. But USAA’s claim, the court observed, sought to recover the damage to the insured’s car. The crash report clearly identified the city employee and the insured, stated that the employee’s car struck the insured’s, and contained a diagram showing how the vehicles collided. It also said that the vehicle had been towed from the scene. The evidence, consequently, “raise[d] a reasonable inference that [insured’s] vehicle was damaged in the collision and that the City had subjective knowledge of the property damage USAA’s claim is based on and of the identity of the parties” (citations omitted). The crash report likewise raised a reasonable inference that the city knew that it’s employee was largely at fault for the accident. The court thus concluded that the evidence raised a fact issue as to whether the city had actual notice. The court affirmed the trial court.
