In so doing, the legislature acknowledged its intent that all “injuries alleged to be caused by a governmental entity that occurred before July 1, 2004, be governed by the provisions” of the former Act. Id. § 48, at 1215. Because the injuries alleged by plaintiffs in this case occurred prior to July 1, 2004, the former Act governs and all references in this opinion are to that Act. 3 . This court has recognized that equitable claims are not governed by the notice of claim provisions of the Immunity Act. For example, in El Rancho Enterprises, Inc. v. Murray City Corp., 565 P.2d 778, 780 (Utah 1977), we noted that "an equitable claim may be brought without the necessity of first presenting a claim for damages.” See also Am. Tierra Corp. v. City of W. Jordan, 840 P.2d 757, 760 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>); Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1154 (Utah
holding that equitable claims are exempt from the filing requirements and time limits imposed by the  immunity act recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage