Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/410/764/154926/
Timestamp: 2019-12-07 15:08:34
Document Index: 700465292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1346', '§ 2680', 'art. 15', '§ 13', '§ 10', '§ 2680', 'art. 15', '§ 1', '§ 505', '§ 102', '§ 212']

Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. the United States, 410 F.2d 764 (Ct. Cl. 1969) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Court of Claims › 1969 › Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. the United States
Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. the United States, 410 F.2d 764 (Ct. Cl. 1969)
U.S. Court of Claims (1855-1982) - 410 F.2d 764 (Ct. Cl. 1969) May 16, 1969
This is plaintiff's second suit arising out of the same occurrence. In the earlier case (Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 378 F.2d 812 (C.A. 2), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 953, 88 S. Ct. 335, 19 L. Ed. 2d 361 (1967)), the Second Circuit set forth the facts as follows (378 F.2d at 813):
Marine Insurance paid its insured, and as subrogee of the claim sued the United States, in the Southern District of New York, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671-2680 (1964). On the Government's motion for summary judgment, the District Court and the Court of Appeals both held that no claim was stated under that Act which specifically excepts (§ 2680(b)) " [a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters."
The reason this square holding destroys plaintiff's first cause of action is that we have ruled that the Government is not liable — assuming that an implied contract of bailment exists between the Government and a sender by virtue of a mailing — for loss of or damage to mail, except as may be provided in the postal laws and regulations.2 Twentier v. United States, 109 F. Supp. 406, 124 Ct. Cl. 244 (1953). In that case a firm sought damages for the loss of jewelry from packages mailed at the fourth class, unprotected rate to an Army Post Office overseas; at the time, the use of registered, insured, or c.o.d. services for mail to such A.P.O. addresses was forbidden, and the claimant was thus unable to protect itself through those devices. The court said (109 F. Supp. at 408-409, 124 Ct. Cl. at 249): "The United States is liable to the owners of lost or damaged mail only to the extent to which it has consented to be liable, and the extent of its liability is defined by the Postal Laws and Regulations. Public policy requires that the mails shall be carried subject to these regulations, [citation], and the liability of the Government in case of loss or damage is fixed by these regulations." See, also, Nickola v. United States Gov't Post Office Dep't, 137 F. Supp. 943 (E.D. Mich. 1956), aff'd on opinion below, 229 F.2d 737 (C. A. 6, 1955) cert. denied, 351 U.S. 908, 76 S. Ct. 698, 100 L. Ed. 1443 (1956); cf. Treifus & Co. v. Post Office, [1957] 2 Q.B. 352 (C.A.).
It is as true here as in Twentier that the postal laws and regulations grant no relief to the claimant. There is plainly no right, as plaintiff concedes, under the domestic rules since the package was not governmentally insured or otherwise protected. The parcel post agreement between Switzerland and the United States likewise provides: "Neither the sender nor the addressee is entitled to indemnity in case of loss, rifling or damage of an ordinary parcel, i.e., of an uninsured parcel."3 And even where the parcel is publicly insured, the United States is liable only to Switzerland and then only after that country, as the office of origin which has " [t]he obligation of paying the indemnity", makes good on the indemnity in accordance with the insurance fee collected (art. 15 § 13, 47 Stat. 2008; see, also arts. 14, 15 §§ 10, 14, 47 Stat. 2004, 2007-2008).4
By the same token, the second cause of action, for a taking, also founders on the Court of Appeals' determination that the package remained in the mails at all times. The reasons of public policy which forbid recovery on a theory of implied contract — and which are also reflected in the express exception to the coverage of the Tort Claims Act, supra, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) — dictate that a plaintiff cannot obtain recovery by reformulating his claim for lost mail as one for an eminent domain taking. "The specific provisions of the statutes [and regulations] condition and limit the extent to which the Government has consented to suit in regard to postal matters." Nickola v. United States Gov't Post Office Dep't, supra, 137 F. Supp. at 944. To allow a suit for a taking "would be to circumvent the entire statutory scheme, as provided by Congress, and to make possible a recovery where none was ever contemplated". Twentier v. United States, supra, 109 F. Supp. at 409, 124 Ct. Cl. at 250.
Parcel Post Agreement with Switzerland, April 1, 1932, art. 15 § 1, 47 Stat. 2004. This agreement is considered part of the postal laws and regulations, and has the same force and effect as other regulations issued by the Postmaster General under authority of law See 39 U.S.C. § 505 (1964); Standard Fruit & S. S. Co. v. United States, 103 Ct. Cl. 659, 682 (1945); 39 C.F.R. § 102.2 (Jan. 1, 1962) (currently 39 C.F.R. § 212.2 (Jan. 1, 1968)).