[¶ 25.] The parents contend that the rigid scheme of SDCL 3-21-2 should not preclude remedies for breach of implied and expressed contractual obligation because breach of contract is not a tort-based claim. Contract claims carry á six-year statute of limitations. SDCL 15-2-13. Therefore, they assert that the matter should be remanded to the trial court on the breach of contract claims. [¶26.] “We have long recognized that ‘[c]onduct that is merely a breach of contract is not a tort.’ ” Trouten v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co., 2001 SD 106, ¶ 32, 632 N.W.2d 856, 864 (quoting Weeg v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Co., 82 S.D. 104, 109-10, 141 N.W.2d 913, 916 (1966)). Consequently, the notice provisions of SDCL 3-21-2 do not apply to breach of contract claims. Finch, 443 N.W.2d at 635 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court erred in granting
holding that prejudice is not an element to be considered in regard to the failure to give mandated statutory notice holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3 holding that it is not necessary to give notice pursuant to sdcl 3212 on contractbased claims holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that it is not