Home/D. Nebraska/Sky Harbor Air Service, Inc. v. United States

Sky Harbor Air Service, Inc. v. United States

348 F. Supp. 594, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12140
CourtDistrict Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedAugust 31, 1972
DocketCiv. 71-0-207
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 348 F. Supp. 594 (Sky Harbor Air Service, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sky Harbor Air Service, Inc. v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 594, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12140 (D. Neb. 1972).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENNEY, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon motion of the defendant for partial summary judgment [Filing #15].

This case is brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346, and involves an airplane accident of May 20, 1970. The aircraft was owned by plaintiff, Sky Harbor Air Service, Inc. (hereafter Sky Harbor) and on board was an employee of Sky Harbor, Dean Hunt, and defendant’s employee, Arthur N. Richardson, a flight inspector. Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of Richardson and that the damages totalled $9,464.65. Sky Harbor was insured by plaintiff, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (hereafter Fireman’s Fund) through plaintiff, Associated Aviation Underwriters (hereafter Associated). The insurance policy provided that the insured would bear the first $2700.00 of *595 the loss and thus, on October 22, 1970, Fireman’s Fund, through Associated, paid to Sky Harbor $6,764.65, via a loan receipt arrangement. Thereafter, on December 17, 1970, there was filed with the Federal Aviation Agency a claim for $9,464.65, the Federal Tort Procedure providing in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675 that no claim may be sued upon unless it shall be first presented to the appropriate agency and finally denied by that agency. The $9,464.65 claim was denied by letter from the Federal Aviation Administration which was addressed to and received by Mr. J. L. Daugherty, claims manager for Associated, on March 22, 1971. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b) provides that a tort claim must be filed within two years after the claim arose. Here, the claim arose on May 20, 1970, the date of the accident, and on May 31, 1972, eleven days after the statute had apparently run, the defendant, United States of America (hereafter Government) filed its motion for partial summary judgment, which is the subject of this memorandum. The Government contends that the FAA claim was filed only by Sky Harbor and that the law requires that both Fireman’s Fund and Associated file claims with the Federal Aviation Administration for the amounts of their subrogation and, since they did not do so, the Government should have partial summary judgment against both Fireman’s Fund and Associated. The plaintiffs contend that for ten months between the time of July 23, 1971, when this suit was filed, and May 31, 1972, the defect, if any, could have been easily corrected and that the Government’s conduct can be described as “laying in the weeds” until the statute had run. If that be a proper characterization, then the Court is of the opinion that those weeds grow upon quicksand, for that is the analogy the Court would make to the ground upon which the Government’s position now stands.

The Government first argues that claims under the Tort Claims Act must be prosecuted by the real party in interest, citing United States v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366, 70 S.Ct. 207, 94 L.Ed. 171 [1949]. In that case, the Supreme Court construed Rule 17(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding prosecution of suits in the name of the real party in interest and Rule 19 regarding joinder of necessary parties. The Court held that where partial subrogation has occurred then both the insurer and the insured are real parties in interest and “although either party may sue, the United States, upon timely motion, may compel their joinder.” United States v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., supra, at p. 381, 70 S.Ct. at 216. This Court is not persuaded that the Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. case is persuasive on the facts of the case at bar. Here, there is no question that this suit is not being prosecuted in the name of all necessary parties, the issue being only whether it was previously properly presented to the FAA. According to Rule 1, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern only the procedure to be used in the Federal district courts. Herein, the solution of the question will depend upon whether the claim was presented in accordance with the manner required under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the regulations therefor.

The applicable statute is 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675, which provides;

(a) An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed, shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be *596 deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by third party complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.
(b) Action under this section shall not be instituted for any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented to the federal agency, except where the increased amount is based upon newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the claim to the federal agency, or upon allegation and proof of intervening facts, relating to the amount of the claim.

The applicable regulations are 28 C. F.R. § 14.2(a) and § 14.3.

§ 14.2(a) provides:

(a) For purposes of the provisions of section 2672 of Title 28, United States Code, a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when a Federal agency receives from a claimant, his duly authorized agent or legal representative, an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident, accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain for injury to or loss of property, personal injury, or death alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident. If a claim is presented to the wrong Federal agency, that agency shall transfer it forthwith to the appropriate agency. ■

§ 14.3(d) provides:

(d) A claim for loss wholly compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer. A claim for loss partially compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the parties individually as their respective interests appear, or jointly. (Emphasis added)

It is not argued that a Standard Form 95, as required by § 14.2(a) was not filed with the FAA, but instead that the Form 95 was presented entirely in the name of the insured, when it should have been presented in the names of the insured and the insurers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Munger v. United States
116 F. Supp. 2d 672 (D. Maryland, 2000)
Severtson v. United States
806 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Louisiana, 1992)
Crispin v. American Samoa Government
21 Am. Samoa 2d 60 (High Court of American Samoa, 1992)
Nicholson Air Service, Inc. v. United States
686 F. Supp. 538 (D. Maryland, 1988)
Dillon v. United States
480 F. Supp. 862 (D. South Dakota, 1979)
Quaker Oats Co. v. Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission
268 N.W.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1978)
Lunsford v. United States
570 F.2d 221 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
Van Fossen v. United States
430 F. Supp. 1017 (N.D. California, 1977)
Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. United States
431 F. Supp. 1243 (E.D. New York, 1977)
Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. United States
507 F.2d 508 (Sixth Circuit, 1974)
Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
63 F.R.D. 69 (N.D. Illinois, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
348 F. Supp. 594, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sky-harbor-air-service-inc-v-united-states-ned-1972.