Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

brought more than two years after “ ‘the cause of action ac-
crued.’ ”  271 U. S., at 60 (quoting ch. 149, §6, 35 Stat. 66). 
We held that the plaintiff ’s wrongful-death claim accrued
when the employee died, even though the estate’s adminis-
trator was not appointed until later and the administrator 
was “the only person authorized by the statute to maintain
the action.”  271 U. S., at 60.  The Board interprets Koons 
to  hold  that  a  claim  accrued  at  a  time  when  no  plaintiff
could sue.  Thus, the Board reasons, it is consistent with the 
meaning  of  “accrue”  to  say  that  Corner  Post’s  claim  “ac-
crued” before it could sue. 

The  Board’s  characterization  of  Koons  is  incomplete. 
Koons  explained  that  the  administrator  “acts  only  for  the
benefit  of  persons  specifically  designated  in  the  statute,” 
and  at  the  “time  of  death  there  are  identified  persons  for 
whose benefit the liability exists and who can start the ma-
chinery of the law in motion to enforce it, by applying for 
the appointment of an administrator.”  Id., at 62.  If a ben-
eficiary sued in her individual capacity immediately after 
the employee’s death, she could amend her suit to describe 
herself as “executor or administrator of the decedent.”  Ibid. 
So “at the death of decedent, there are real parties in inter-
est who may procure the action to be brought.”  Id., at 62– 
63.  While it is true that the claim accrued before any par-
ticular  administrator  was  appointed,  the  beneficiaries  on 
whose  behalf  any  administrator  would  seek  relief—the
“real parties in interest”—had the right to “procure the ac-
tion” after the employee died.  Given this unique context, 
Koons does not contradict the proposition that a claim gen-
erally  accrues  when  the  plaintiff  has  a  complete  and  pre-
sent cause of action. 
  Nor  does  Crown  Coat.   That  case  concerned  a  contract 
dispute in which a Government contractor sought an equi-
table adjustment to the payment it received.  386 U. S., at 
507.  The  contract  required  the  contractor  to  present  its
claim to the contracting officer and Armed Services Board