Katrina's victims ask for huge checks

[Aash Li]

I would just like to point out that the federal government is not responsible for levies and bridges and roads and the like.

 

Its the state.

[mimartin]

I would just like to point out that the federal government is not responsible for levies and bridges and roads and the like.

 

Its the state.

Are you sure about levies? I believe it is the reasonability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At least they took responsibility for the failure of the levies. I do know if the waterways around the levies are navigable then nobody can work on them without the U.S. Army corps of Engineers supervision. Which I do believe the waters surrounding New Orleans are navigable.

CBS News

 

Now if we are talking about cost to put up and maintain that is an entirely different matter. I’m just taking about design and supervision.

 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer-Mission-Water Resources

[Achilles]

You think 3 quadrillion dollars is a reasonable amount to seek for punitive damages?

I would need to hear the rationale before passing judgment. At this point, we can't even state definitively that this is a request for punitive damages. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that no matter the explanation, there is raw emotion involved at some point.

 

I should hope that it's far less than those requested.

*shrugs* better hope the judge isn't sympathetic or the case against the gov't is weak.

 

In cases like this, I don't think most people would need full disclosure of all the facts before coming to an 'informed opinion'. Good old common sense would suffice.

What are "cases like this"? I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Also, love the idea that people can make informed opinions without the facts. Hooray critical thinking.

 

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/11/02_levee_testimony.shtml

Thanks for the link.

 

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the amount of punitive damages is reasonable considering the circumstances.

Yep. Sure is.

 

While it may be the case that some entities may have a case for large sums of punitive damages, I do not believe any court or jury anywhere will even seriously entertain the idea of handing out a sixteen-digit amount.

And perhaps you are correct.

 

Thanks for your post.

[El Sitherino]

Wah, my house got filled with water.

 

Gimme all the money in the worlds.

[tk102]

What are "cases like this"? I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Also, love the idea that people can make informed opinions without the facts. Hooray critical thinking.

Dude, nothing is worth $3,000,000,000,000 and you know it. "cases like this" = someone making an outrageous claim to get attention. I'm quite taken aback by how much credence you're giving it. There was a reason I put this in Ahto to begin with -- it's laughable.

[Achilles]

Dude, nothing is worth $3,000,000,000,000 and you know it.

If you're happy drawing that conclusion without having all the information, then all the best.

 

"cases like this" = someone making an outrageous claim to get attention.

Yes, clearly, especially since we don't know who it is

 

I'm quite taken aback by how much credence you're giving it.

Really? How much credence is that? Seems every post I've written simply points out that we don't know why the amount was sought and should refrain from passing judgement until we do. Does that = "endorsement" in your world? Does any part of that strike you as inconsistent with any argument I've ever made about anything?

 

There was a reason I put this in Ahto to begin with -- it's laughable.

Feel free to put it where ever you'd like.

[Rogue Nine]

I would need to hear the rationale before passing judgment. At this point, we can't even state definitively that this is a request for punitive damages. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that no matter the explanation, there is raw emotion involved at some point.

Aaaand that emotion is greed.

 

*shrugs* better hope the judge isn't sympathetic or the case against the gov't is weak.

I'm sure that everyone has all the sympathy in the world for the victims of Hurrican Katrina. However, I don't think even an overly-sympathetic judge would be willing to dole out such a ludicrous sum.

 

What are "cases like this"? I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Also, love the idea that people can make informed opinions without the facts. Hooray critical thinking.

What tk said.

 

And perhaps you are correct.

I'd be willing to bet 3 quadrillion dollars on it.

[Achilles]

Aaaand that emotion is greed.

Or anger. You're welcome to jump to whatever conclusion you'd like though.

 

I'm sure that everyone has all the sympathy in the world for the victims of Hurrican Katrina. However, I don't think even an overly-sympathetic judge would be willing to dole out such a ludicrous sum.

Then you have absolutely nothing to worry about then, do you? Are we done here?

 

What tk said.

And what I said to him.

 

I'd be willing to bet 3 quadrillion dollars on it.

And you'd probably be right.

[Corinthian]

Achilles, you seem to have no concept of how much money they're demanding, despite how many times we say it. A $1,000,000,000 is a hell of a lot of money. They're asking for THREE MILLION TIMES THAT. You realize with this kind of money, we could end world hunger, cure almost every disease, find a cure for AIDS, Cancer, and the Avian Flu, stabilize the Middle-East, make Israel and Palestinians agree, and still have enough money left over to make Hell freeze over?

[tk102]

Yes, clearly, especially since we don't know who it is

For the amount claimed, it makes absolutely no difference who is making the claim. There is nobody who can pay it and there is nothing that is worth that much -- hence the only value is in making the claim for attention's sake. I don't see another rational conclusion that can be drawn.

 

Seems every post I've written simply points out that we don't know why the amount was sought and should refrain from passing judgement until we do.

Two different things here about judgment.

 

We can certainly pass judgment on the amount sought. And I hope you do pass judgment on that without having to resort to a calculator and damage receipts.

 

As for the "why" behind which it was sought, it seems obvious to me that it was to get attention for something. Maybe that something *is* important. Is that perhaps what you're getting at? That maybe this person does have a claim that deserves the attention and that the ends justify means? I haven't passed judgment on that out of hand. So if that was your meaning, I'd agree.

[Corinthian]

Suing for say, 150 billion wouldn't be unreasonable. Suing for this much is little more than stupidity and greed, and maybe with a little bit of an attention demand, the kind you tend to get from five year olds.

[tk102]

Suing for say, 150 billion wouldn't be unreasonable.

Umm, yeah it would. $250,000 is more on par.

 

As for attention demand, well it's been working on us. I wonder what the world record is for biggest claim? Maybe that was an incentive too.

[Achilles]

Achilles, you seem to have no concept of how much money they're demanding, despite how many times we say it. A $1,000,000,000 is a hell of a lot of money.

Oh, I grasp the concept just fine. You seem to think that the dollar amount actually matters even though you have no context for why the amount is being sought. Perhaps the person filing the claim hopes to permanently bankrupt the federal government and use the proceeds to finance his/her own. I hope he/she is a benevolent ruler.

 

They're asking for THREE MILLION TIMES THAT. You realize with this kind of money, we could end world hunger, cure almost every disease, find a cure for AIDS, Cancer, and the Avian Flu, stabilize the Middle-East, make Israel and Palestinians agree, and still have enough money left over to make Hell freeze over?

Perhaps that what's the plaintiff hopes to do with the awarded sum.

 

For the amount claimed, it makes absolutely no difference who is making the claim. There is nobody who can pay it and there is nothing that is worth that much -- hence the only value is in making the claim for attention's sake. I don't see another ration conclusion that can be drawn.

Do you mean personal attention? If so, then the "who" is absolutely essential because since "who" has not come forward, then we the "attention" explanation doesn't make much sense.

 

Two different things here about judgment.

 

We can certainly pass judgment on the amount sought. And I hope you do pass judgment on that without having to resort to a calculator and damage receipts.

And why is that?

 

PS: damage receipts would only be applicable for compensatory damages.

 

As for the "why" behind which it was sought, it seems obvious to me that it was to get attention for something.

And you may be right. I don't have enough information to share your conviction.

 

May that something *is* important. Is that perhaps what you're getting at? That maybe this person does have a claim that deserves the attention and that the ends justify means?

Yes, maybe the person does and maybe the person doesn't. Without more information I can't really know either way and frankly, neither can you.

 

I haven't passed judgment on that out of hand. So if that was your meaning, I'd agree.

Glad to hear it.

[Corinthian]

Uh, the Federal Government is never going to award them even a thousandth of this much. They're not going to bankrupt the Federal Government, as they've got no backing for their demands for this much. Punitive damages? You've got to be kidding me. The $125 Billion in compensation, plus another 2,999,875,000,000,000? That's absolutely ridiculous. I was under the impression you actually had a decent grasp of economics. I was under the impression this was one issue that would bring everyone together - the people who filed this suit are morons.

 

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD. If we turned every Euro, Yen, Peso, and every other form of currency in the world into $ and put it all into one gargantuan pile, we might be able to come up with 1/3 of this. Maybe.

 

They're not trying to buy back New Orleans. They're not even trying to buy Louisiana or the United States. They're trying to buy Earth, with the moon thrown in as part of the bargain.

 

The fact that they're grubbing for this much money...well, they don't deserve any now. How about they start mowing lawns instead of going for a Government Get Rich Quick Route?

[tk102]

Do you mean personal attention? If so, then the "who" is absolutely essential because since "who" has not come forward, then we the "attention" explanation doesn't make much sense.

The courts know who filed the claim so he's getting attention from them. The media reported the claim's amount, thereby drawing attention to Katrina victims. I don't know what the plaintiff wanted to draw attention to -- himself, his damages, the plight of Katrina victims, or the ineptitude of the government. I'd guess probably all of the above.

We can certainly pass judgment on the amount sought.

And why is that? PS: damage receipts would only be applicable for compensatory damages.

Because punitive damages are set by judges or jurors who follow guidelines and precedents. Compensatory damages are objective. The amount sought plainly dwarfs the combination of the two. It really doesn't take any effort to see this, Achilles.

As for the "why" behind which it was sought, it seems obvious to me that it was to get attention for something.

And you may be right. I don't have enough information to share your conviction.

What are the alternatives? That the plaintiff can actually back up damages for the amount sought? That the plaintiff is insane? That this was a bad typo?

 

I don't have the willpower to suspend my conclusion that this is, on its face, a publicity stunt.

[Darth333]

I have a hard time remaining (semi)serious when I see such a ridiculous and out of proportion claim ( I think that the guy is a greedy bastard in serious need of attention ) but here goes...

 

I admit I know very little about US torts law and the notion of punitive damages as it exists in the US is totally foreign to me. However, punitive damages cannot be just an arbitrary crazy sum of money granted without any regard to common sense and reasonableness and that is not subject to any guidelines and precedents... A quick search led me to this decision of the US Supreme Court, which discusses the notion of punitive damages:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=517&invol=559

 

I don't know if the case is up to date or if there are more relevant and better cases as this was a quick 5 minutes search in a free database and related to a foreign legal system (I guess RN is better placed than I am to comment on this ). I've read it quickly and here are the more relevant points I found:

 

- The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a "`grossly excessive'" punishment on a tortfeasor. Yeah, the traditional criteria of reasonableness...Now, how could an amount that exceeds the US gross domestic product by more than 20 times not be "grossly excessive"? In any event there is no way an amount of 3 quadrillion could be technically recovered...so that alone tells a lot about the excessiveness of the amount.

 

- Punitive damages may properly be imposed to further a State's legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition. How could awarding such an amount could help deterring the repetition of similar situations as there wouldn't be any money left to do anything! (levees and dikes would crumble everywhere - even without the help of a hurricane - and you can't stop hurricanes from happening either!)

 

- Whether or not there are aggravating factors such as reprehensible conduct ( intentional malice, trickery, affirmative acts of misconduct vs negligence, good faith vs bad faith).

 

- Another factor to be taken into account is the ratio to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff and exemplary damages must bear a "reasonable relationship" to compensatory damages. And the court continues citing other cases: In Haslip we concluded that even though a punitive damages award of "more than 4 times the amount of compensatory damages," might be "close to the line," it did not "cross the line into the area of constitutional impropriety." but a higher ratio can also be justified: we have consistently rejected the notion that the constitutional line is marked by a simple mathematical formula, even one that compares actual and potential damages to the punitive award. Indeed, low awards of compensatory damages may properly support a higher ratio than high compensatory awards, if, for example, a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages. A higher ratio may also be justified in cases in which the injury is hard to detect or the monetary value of noneconomic harm might have been difficult to determine. It is appropriate, therefore, to reiterate our rejection of a categorical approach. Once again, "we return to what we said . . . in Haslip: `We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case. We can say, however, that [a] general concer[n] of reasonableness . . . properly enter into the constitutional calculus.'" In most cases, the ratio will be within a constitutionally acceptable range, and remittitur will not be justified on this basis. When the ratio is a breathtaking 500 to 1, however, the award must surely "raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow." I think it speaks for itself...

 

Btw I have shown the newsbit to my work colleagues and they all had a good laugh...one of them even said "at that price not only they can flood my house but they can even drown me...I'm sure my wife will appreciate the nice estate".

 

Suing for say, 150 billion wouldn't be unreasonable. Suing for this much is little more than stupidity and greed, and maybe with a little bit of an attention demand, the kind you tend to get from five year olds.

150 billions? I guess that a 3 quadrillion lawsuit can make everyone loose their sense of proportion

 

Random thought: I wonder how much the attorney would get...

[Balderdash]

Depending on the state laws, it could be punative damages. Like I said, without knowing more, I'm not ready to come down one way or the other regarding the number.

Unless my tentative understanding of US law is awry (wouldn't be the first time) it could really be punitive damages regardless of state laws. That still doesn't mean that the figure is anywhere near remotely sane or reasonable.

 

Incidentally, over here, punitive damages are known as exemplary damages. In this case the term "punitive damages" could be considered something of a double entendre, due to the strain the kinds of sums being talked about would put on your economy. Allow me to illustrate why:

 

Punitive (adjective)

 

1. of or as punishment

relating to, done as, or imposed as a punishment eg. punitive air strikes.

 

2. creating burden

causing great difficulty or hardship eg. punitive taxation

 

They know they're not going to get it, but most every lawsuit goes that way. I mean some idiot lady spilled hot coffee on her lap and won millions.

That "idiot lady" is a well known urban myth, and I've seen sources that have claimed that the lady in question was a pensioner who nearly died from the third degree burns she suffered from her beverage, which was 200 degrees hotter than it was supposed to be. I certainly can't speak for the infallible credibility of said sources, but it's always a good idea to regard these kinds of stories with a little skepticism.

 

Umm, yeah it would. $250,000 is more on par.

That would tend to depend on individual cases. You can't really attribute an arbitrary figure to an unquantified hypothetical. Achilles is correct in the sense that we don't know who is claiming, or why. $3,000,000,000,000,000 is still a completely ridiculous number, though. You have to call a spade a spade when it comes to things like this.

 

As for the "why" behind which it was sought, it seems obvious to me that it was to get attention for something. Maybe that something *is* important. Is that perhaps what you're getting at? That maybe this person does have a claim that deserves the attention and that the ends justify means? I haven't passed judgment on that out of hand. So if that was your meaning, I'd agree.

QFT.

[Corinthian]

 

150 billions? I guess that a 3 quadrillion lawsuit can make everyone loose their sense of proportion

 

Random thought: I wonder how much the attorney would get...

Well, yes, true, but I'm assuming...hoping, that this is a class action lawsuit. Assuming this represents every person in New Orleans, $150 billion wouldn't be all that unreasonable, that's approximately the amount estimated to rebuild the city. On the other hand, it's their own dumb fault for being there in the first place...

[MJ-W4]

every Euro

Sorry, you can't have them, they're still in use over here.

 

I think we should point the guys from the Guinness Book of World Records to this insane claim. Anyone headed for Dublin, by any chance? Come to think of it, insanity alone doesn't quite take the biscuit. Perhaps, 'lunacy with a vengeance' is more to the point?

[Corinthian]

We really need a prize for stupidity that doesn't involve getting killed.

[MJ-W4]

^ So would you agree that the outrageousness of that claim has a connotation along the line: 'OMGZ I want some attention!' ?

[Achilles]

Uh, the Federal Government is never going to award them even a thousandth of this much.

Then what are you worried about?

 

They're not going to bankrupt the Federal Government, as they've got no backing for their demands for this much.

You assume.

 

Punitive damages? You've got to be kidding me. The $125 Billion in compensation, plus another 2,999,875,000,000,000? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, it might indeed appear that way.

 

I was under the impression you actually had a decent grasp of economics.

I guess I don't bring economics to legal discussions. Sorry if that makes you feel let down some how.

 

I was under the impression this was one issue that would bring everyone together - the people who filed this suit are morons.

Entirely possible, yes.

 

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE WORLD.

No, I got it even without the caps lock. If plaintiff A sues company B and is awarded more money than company B has, then company B files for bankruptcy and goes out of business. Plaintiff A may never see a dime, but perhaps all plaintiff A ever really cared about was hurting company B. So, as I have stated previously, without knowing the intent of the plaintiff, the money really doesn't matter.

 

If we turned every Euro, Yen, Peso, and every other form of currency in the world into $ and put it all into one gargantuan pile, we might be able to come up with 1/3 of this. Maybe.

Maybe they'll accept artwork, cars, boats, furs, etc as well. Does that get us up to 2/3s?

 

They're not trying to buy back New Orleans. They're not even trying to buy Louisiana or the United States. They're trying to buy Earth, with the moon thrown in as part of the bargain.

As I've already stated, I hope they're benevolent rulers.

 

The fact that they're grubbing for this much money...well, they don't deserve any now. How about they start mowing lawns instead of going for a Government Get Rich Quick Route?

Well, I really think that's up to a judge/jury but you're certainly entitled to your opinion in the mean time. Take care.

 

The courts know who filed the claim so he's getting attention from them.

So attention from one party = attention mongering? Doesn't add up, teekay.

 

The media reported the claim's amount, thereby drawing attention to Katrina victims.

Oh, so not personal attention then? That sounds reasonable too.

 

I don't know what the plaintiff wanted to draw attention to -- himself, his damages, the plight of Katrina victims, or the ineptitude of the government. I'd guess probably all of the above.

So you don't know who "he" (assuming it wasn't a "she") wants attention from, you just *know* that "he" wants attention? I am pleased to see that we're acknowledging that we're guessing.

 

Because punitive damages are set by judges or jurors who follow guidelines and precedents. Compensatory damages are objective. The amount sought plainly dwarfs the combination of the two. It really doesn't take any effort to see this, Achilles.

I'm afraid I don't see how this supports your earlier statement or addresses my point. You've stated that you can pass judgment on the amount, but you don't state why. But whatever the reason is it should be obvious to me. You've indicated that it might have something to do with the amount, but again that seems pretty consistent with idea that we're dealing with punitive damages (i.e. trying to teach someone a lesson, etc). Apologies in advance if I am missing something truly obvious.

 

What are the alternatives? That the plaintiff can actually back up damages for the amount sought? That the plaintiff is insane? That this was a bad typo?

Yeah, those all sound like plausible alternatives to me. I bet we can probably think of some more too.

 

I don't have the willpower to suspend my conclusion that this is, on its face, a publicity stunt.

The fact that you are cautious enough to add a qualifier makes this statement pretty humorous for me. It seems that deep down you are at least a little aware that there's a possibility for a reasonable explanation that you don't have access to. I guess I'm just not as ashamed to admit it as you are.

 

I have a hard time remaining (semi)serious when I see such a ridiculous and out of proportion claim ( I think that the guy is a greedy bastard in serious need of attention ) but here goes...

 

I admit I know very little about US torts law and the notion of punitive damages as it exists in the US is totally foreign to me. However, punitive damages cannot be just an arbitrary crazy sum of money granted without any regard to common sense and reasonableness and that is not subject to any guidelines and precedents...

Like perhaps the relative wealth of the party being sued? Figure close to $13 trillion annual GDP...I wonder what all U.S. gov't assets are worth...hmmm.

 

I don't know if the case is up to date or if there are more relevant and better cases as this was a quick 5 minutes search in a free database and related to a foreign legal system (I guess RN is better placed than I am to comment on this ). I've read it quickly and here are the more relevant points I found:

 

- The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a "`grossly excessive'" punishment on a tortfeasor. Yeah, the traditional criteria of reasonableness...Now, how could an amount that exceeds the US gross domestic product by more than 20 times not be "grossly excessive"? In any event there is no way an amount of 3 quadrillion could be technically recovered...so that alone tells a lot about the excessiveness of the amount.

You know this? I don't.

 

- Punitive damages may properly be imposed to further a State's legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition. How could awarding such an amount could help deterring the repetition of similar situations as there wouldn't be any money left to do anything! (levees and dikes would crumble everywhere - even without the help of a hurricane - and you can't stop hurricanes from happening either!)

*pictures a map of the U.S. with an 'under new management' sign hanging off of the top somewhere*

 

- Whether or not there are aggravating factors such as reprehensible conduct ( intentional malice, trickery, affirmative acts of misconduct vs negligence, good faith vs bad faith).

Like many claim exist re: Katrina.

 

- Another factor to be taken into account is the ratio to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff and exemplary damages must bear a "reasonable relationship" to compensatory damages. And the court continues citing other cases: In Haslip we concluded that even though a punitive damages award of "more than 4 times the amount of compensatory damages," might be "close to the line," it did not "cross the line into the area of constitutional impropriety." but a higher ratio can also be justified: we have consistently rejected the notion that the constitutional line is marked by a simple mathematical formula, even one that compares actual and potential damages to the punitive award. Indeed, low awards of compensatory damages may properly support a higher ratio than high compensatory awards, if, for example, a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages. A higher ratio may also be justified in cases in which the injury is hard to detect or the monetary value of noneconomic harm might have been difficult to determine. It is appropriate, therefore, to reiterate our rejection of a categorical approach. Once again, "we return to what we said . . . in Haslip: `We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case. We can say, however, that [a] general concer[n] of reasonableness . . . properly enter into the constitutional calculus.'" In most cases, the ratio will be within a constitutionally acceptable range, and remittitur will not be justified on this basis. When the ratio is a breathtaking 500 to 1, however, the award must surely "raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow." I think it speaks for itself...

Well, to teekay's point, this assumes that the plaintiff actually expects the case to make it to courtroom - it may be that he or she is simply trying for some publicity. We don't know.

 

Btw I have shown the newsbit to my work colleagues and they all had a good laugh...one of them even said "at that price not only they can flood my house but they can even drown me...I'm sure my wife will appreciate the nice estate".

Glad the victims of Katrina were good for a laugh in your office.

 

Random thought: I wonder how much the attorney would get...

I'm sure they're only seeking a modest 10% plus legal fees

 

Unless my tentative understanding of US law is awry (wouldn't be the first time) it could really be punitive damages regardless of state laws.

Apologies. I only qualified that because my understanding is that the policy for punitive damages varies from state to state.

 

Incidentally, over here, punitive damages are known as exemplary damages. In this case the term "punitive damages" could be considered something of a double entendre, due to the strain the kinds of sums being talked about would put on your economy.

Well, not unless they're specifically being used to be punitive

 

That "idiot lady" is a well known urban myth, and I've seen sources that have claimed that the lady in question was a pensioner who nearly died from the third degree burns she suffered from her beverage, which was 200 degrees hotter than it was supposed to be. I certainly can't speak for the infallible credibility of said sources, but it's always a good idea to regard these kinds of stories with a little skepticism.

Nope, Stella Liebeck is real.

[Balderdash]

I didn't mean that she was a complete fabrication, just that she's an urban myth in the sense that there is a lot of false information circulating about her. Didn't realize there was quite that much information about the case, though. It probably was a stretch calling it a myth, in hindsight. I guess it was a bigger story stateside than I realised...

[Achilles]

Oh, my apologies then. Sorry I didn't pick up on that.

[mimartin]

I only qualified that because my understanding is that the policy for punitive damages varies from state to state.

State law will not matter in this case. When suing the Federal Government, you must sue them in Federal Courts. My understanding of this is you must identify a specific dollar amount that you are seeking (under the standard form 95) and you must do so under the statute of limitation, which is two years from the date you knew of the negligence. Then the Government has 6 months to investigate and offer a settlement. If after 6 months a settlement cannot be reached only then can you bring the suite forward in a United States District Court. You are not entitled to a jury trial the case will be decided by a federal judge.

 

Standard Form 95 is used to present claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for property damage, personal injury, or death allegedly caused by a federal employee's negligence or wrongful act or omission occurring within the scope of the employee's Federal employment. These claims must be presented to the federal agency whose employee's conduct gave rise to the injury. The Form 95 need not be used to present a claim, but is a convenient format for supplying the necessary information. The Form 95 must be completed and state a claim for money damages in a sum certain amount claimed for injury to or loss of property, personal injury, or death. If a sum certain is not specified in block 12d on the Form 95 or in accompanying information, a submission cannot be considered to be a valid claim. The completed Form 95 must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues. [/Quote]

The claim must be a Tort Claim otherwise you must ask the government permission before suing them. However, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (1946) the government granted an exception that allows the government to be sued in tort cases.

 

I had an insured’s vehicle hit by a postal truck. Avoid getting hit by the a US Postal Carrier at all cost.