State Bd. of Educ. and Farmers Ins. Co., No. 105,108, slip op. (Okla.Civ.App.2008). White Oak held that the 1995 amendment to section 156 required strict compliance with the requirement that notice of governmental tort claims be filed "in writing and with the office of the clerk of the governing body." White Oak examined the sufficiency of a filing with the claims adjuster for a governmental entity's insurer and, citing Minie v. Hudson, 1997 OK 26, 934 P.2d 1082, held that such "substantial compliance" with the filing requirement was no longer an effective substitute for the statutory process. However, in this case, all communications between Crockett and COTPA's Insurer occurred after the Claims Voucher was filed. 6 . Cf., Carswell v. Oklahoma State Univ., 1999 OK 102, 995 P.2d 1118 (<HOLDING>). 7 . COTPA relies on Floyd v. Quinton Pub.
holding that limitations period begins to run on date notice was received at claimants residence even if claimant did not receive it until a later date holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that the state was estopped to argue that the 90day notice period  expired on a date prior to the expiration date it cited to the claimant holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge  a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment holding that the 90day evaluation period begins to run from the time notice of a claim has been filed even though the public agency requests additional information after that date