United States v. Pastell

91 F.2d 575, 112 A.L.R. 1125, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4293
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 6, 1937
DocketNo. 4168
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 91 F.2d 575 (United States v. Pastell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Pastell, 91 F.2d 575, 112 A.L.R. 1125, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4293 (4th Cir. 1937).

Opinion

SOPER, Circuit Judge.

A. L. Pastell, a veteran of the World War, brought this suit against the United States to recover automatic insurance benefits. The jury found that he became totally and permanently disabled while in the military service of the United States within 120 days after his induction into the army, and judgment against the defendant was accordingly entered. This appeal questions the correctness of the refusal of the District Judge to direct a verdict for the defendant in accordance with a motion based on the grounds (1) that the suit was barred by limitations, and (2) that in any event, the veteran had produced no substantial evidence of total and permanent disability. We confine our discussion to the first point since we are of opinion that the suit against the United States was filed too late under the permissive statutes.

The veteran entered the army October 5, 1917, and on October 31, 1917, in the course of military training, suffered an injury by which, as we shall assume for the purposes of this decision, he became totally and permanently disabled. His claim for insurance was filed with the Veterans’ Administration on June 29, 1931, and denied by letter to the veteran on November 15, 1935. This suit was instituted on November 21, 1935. It was then barred under the North Carolina statute of limitations, C. S.N.C. § 445 [see Sligh v. United States, 277 U.S. 582, 48 S.Ct. 600, 72 L.Ed. 998; United States v. Preece (C.C.A.) 85 F.(2d) 952], and was saved only if covered by the federal statutes under which the period for suits of veterans against the United States for war risk insurance has from time to time been enlarged. Consent to sue the government for war risk insurance was first conferred by section 405 of the War Risk Insurance Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 398, 410); and was also embodied in section 13 of the act as amended by the Act of May 20, 1918 (40 Stat. 555), and carried forward as a part of section 19 of the World War Veterans’ Act of. June 7, 1924 (43 Stat. 607, 612). The last-mentioned section was subsequently amended by the Act of March 4, 1925, § 2 (43 Stat. 1302), the Act of May 29, 1928, § 1 (45 Stat. 964), and the Act of [577]*577July 3, 1930, § 4 (46 Stat. 992 (38 U.S.C.A. § 445]), and was further modified by the Act of June 29, 1936, § 404 (49 Stat. 2034 [38 U. S.C.A. § 445d]).

The amendment contained in the Act of May 29, 1928, consisted in the addition of the following clauses:

“No suit shall be allowed under this section unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made, or within one year from the date of the approval of this amendatory Act, whichever is the later date: Provided, That for the purposes of this section it shall be deemed that the right accrued on the happening of the contingency on which the claim is founded: Provided further, That this limitation is suspended for the period elapsing between the filing in the bureau of the claim sued upon and the denial of said claim by the director. * * * No State or other statute of limitations shall be applicable to suits filed under this section. This section shall apply to all suits now pending against the United States under the provisions of this section.”

The amendment of July 3, 1930, further extended the time within which specified suits might be brought, and in so far as relevant, provided, “No suit on yearly renewable term insurance shall be allowed under this section unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made or within one year after the date of approval of this amendatory Act [July 3, 1930], whichever is the later date, and no suit on United States Government life (converted) insurance shall be allowed under this section unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made.”

This amendment also contained the same provision as the Act of May 29, 1928, relative to the time the right shall be deemed to have accrued, to the suspension of limitations during pendency of claim before the Veterans’ Administration, and to the inapplicability of any state or other statute of limitations. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 445.

The amendment of June 29, 1936, contained the following provisions:

“In addition to the suspension of the limitation for the period elapsing between the filing in the Veterans’ Administration of che claim under a contract ©f insurance and the denial thereof by the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs or someone acting in his name, the claimant shall have ninety days from the date of the mailing of notice of such denial within which to file suit. This section is made effective as of July 3, 1930, and shall apply to all suits now pending [on June 29, 1936], against the United States under the provisions of Section 19, World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended [section 445 of this title].”

We rejected the contention of the United States that automatic war risk insurance was repealed by section 17 of the Economy Act of March 20, 1933 (48 Stat. 11, 38 U.S.C.A. § 717), in United States v. Jackson, 89 F.(2d) 572; and we must therefore consider the defense in the pending case that the suit instituted on November 21, 1935, was barred by limitations. It is manifest that it was filed too late to take advantage of the Act of May 29, 1928, under which the latest date was May 29, 1929. But it was filed within the time specified by the subsequent acts, because the Act of July 3, 1930, authorized suit if filed on or before July 3, 1931, plus the period of pendency of claim before the Veterans’ Administration amounting in this case to 4 years, 4 months, and 16 days; so that under this act, the claimant had until November 19, 1935, to file suit; but the Act of June 29, 1936, gave the claimant in addition a period of ninety days from November 15, 1935, the date of the mailing of notice of denial of the claim, that is, until February 13, 1936, within which to bring suit. The suit was actually filed on November 21, 1935.”

But we are in accord with the view expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Preece, 85 F.(2d) 952, where it was held that the benefits of the Act of July 3, 1930, were confined to yearly renewable term insurance and converted insurance, and no provision was made for the further extension of the period of limitations governing suits for automatic insurance. It will have been noticed that the terms of the Act of May 29, 1928, arc sufficiently broad to cover all forms of war risk insurance, but the Act of July 3, 1930, expressly mentioned yearly renewable term insurance and United States government life (converted) insurance, but omits all mention of automatic insurance; and we are forced to conclude, as did the court in the cited case, that the omission was significant, especially in view of the established rule that the United States can be sued only with its consent, and even when consent is given, the courts are not [578]*578free to ignore the accompanying conditions or restrictions so as to extend it beyond the plain language of the grant. It follows that unless the references to term insurance and converted insurance in the act may be fairly interpreted to include automatic insurance, the period for suit against the United States, based on claims for automatic insurance, was not enlarged. In our opinion such an interpretation is not permissible, for Congress in its treatment of the general subject of war risk insurance has itself established distinctions between the three kinds of risks.

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

Related

Juanito Timoni v. United States
419 F.2d 294 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)
Riley v. United States
212 F.2d 692 (Fourth Circuit, 1954)
Weitlauf v. United States
118 F.2d 394 (D.C. Circuit, 1941)
Miller v. United States
114 F.2d 267 (Seventh Circuit, 1940)
Small v. United States
110 F.2d 122 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
Fanello v. United States
29 F. Supp. 485 (D. Massachusetts, 1939)
Walden v. United States
106 F.2d 611 (Sixth Circuit, 1939)
Miller v. United States
24 F. Supp. 958 (E.D. Illinois, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 F.2d 575, 112 A.L.R. 1125, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pastell-ca4-1937.