In Roberts v. State of California (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 844, Mr. Roberts was killed in an automobile accident. His employer and the employer's workers' compensation carrier filed a tort claim against the State of California for its alleged responsibility for the death of Mr. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts and her children also filed a tort claim, but too late. Mrs. Roberts and the children then moved for permission to file a late claim. The trial court granted the motion as to the children, but denied it as to Mrs. Roberts. The appellate court held that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The basis of the ruling was that even though the State was aware of the workers' compensation action and that a claim had been made by the employer and by the compensation carrier, the exposure for indemnification of workers' compensation benefits was not the same as the State would face in a wrongful death action by Mrs. Roberts. In Roberts v. State of California, the court was faced with a contention that was virtually identical to the contention of widow here. There the employee's widow failed to file timely a claim for wrongful death and her petition to file a late claim on her own behalf was denied. She argued that the employer's filing of a claim for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits provided the affected governmental entity with notice sufficient to satisfy the purposes of the claims statute, and that therefore the trial court erred in failing to grant her petition for leave to file a late claim for wrongful death. The court rejected the argument, stating: "If we accept her analysis of the purposes of the statutes involved, it does not follow that the filing of a claim by an insurance carrier and an employer would 'satisfy' such purposes as to the widow, as she would have us hold. The fact that the state has been put on notice that a workmen's compensation carrier and an employer may sue it alerts the state to possible liability under the Labor Code. But that exposure is different in kind and nature from exposure to a wrongful death action by a wife with all the attendant possibilities of complex litigation and the possibility of extremely high damages if liability is established. The contention overlooks the fact that one of the purposes of the claims statute is to provide opportunity for orderly fiscal planning by advance knowledge of potential claims and to provide opportunity for the entity to rectify promptly a condition that resulted in injury and so prevent further losses." (Citing 2 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1959) pp. A-73 -- A-75; 4 ibid. (1963) pp. 1008-1009.) ( Roberts v. State of California, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 844, 848.)