Opinion ID: 488510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Keene Corporation

Text: 14 In September, 1978, Keene presented a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act to eight federal agencies. 32 Four months later, Keene filed an amended notice of claim which listed approximately one thousand lawsuits that had been filed against Keene for which, Keene contended, the United States was primarily liable. The amended notice included a list of the lead plaintiffs and docket numbers of the underlying lawsuits and asserted that the United States was primarily liable for the claims, based upon (1) the Government's role as a supplier of asbestos, (2) the Government's role as an employer of the shipyard workers exposed to asbestos, (3) the Government's failure to take precautions or warn workers regarding the dangers of asbestos, (4) the Government's failure to make safety inspections of facilities using asbestos, and (5) any other theory that will support a claim against the United States of America for Damages. 33 Keene did not attempt to link any of the underlying claims with one or more of these theories of liability. The amended notice apprised the Government of Keene's claim for damages, stating [t]he present amount of Damages [for which the United States is liable to Keene] is the sum of $1,088,135; it then immediately qualified: This sum certain does not include other Damages of which Keene is not presently aware. Subsequently, the amended notice again asserted that the United States of America is indebted to Keene for Damages in the sum of $1,088,135 and in an additional amount yet to be ascertained. 34 15 Keene brought suit against the United States in the Southern District of New York to collect this claim. 35 The United States moved for dismissal on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act due to Keene's failure to satisfy the presentment requirement of Section 2675(a). The District Court ultimately agreed with the Government and dismissed Keene's suit on the ground, among others, that Keene's presentment was deficient under Section 2675(a). 36 16 The District Court noted two deficiencies in Keene's presentment. The court recognized the well-established rule that a proper presentment must place a specific dollar amount upon the claim, 37 and noted that Keene's presentment failed to do so in two respects. First, Keene's claim for an additional amount yet to be ascertained rendered the amount of the claim uncertain. Second, even if the court were to ignore this reservation as to future claims, the District Court held Keene's presentment inadequate because it did not particularize the damages requested for each of the underlying lawsuits. 38 17 The second ground on which the District Court held Keene's amended notice deficient was that it failed to provide the Government with sufficient information to evaluate the claim and choose between settlement and litigation. 39 Keene had failed to respond to the Government's request for specific information regarding each of the underlying claims. Observing that the Government should not be expected to settle on an all-or-nothing basis, nor to sift through the records of the individual lawsuits filed against Keene, 40 the District Court held that the deficiencies of Keene's presentment warranted dismissal of the suit. 18 The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Keene's lawsuit (Keene I ), 41 holding that Keene's presentment was defective under Section 2675(a) for substantially the same reasons cited by the District Court. In particular, the Second Circuit held that the presentment failed to meet the sum-certain requirement, both because the claim included the reservation for an additional amount yet to be ascertained, and because the damage total was not disaggregated to present a sum certain for the amounts sought in indemnification or contribution for each of the underlying claims. 42 Moreover, the court held, the presentment was deficient because it failed to provide sufficient information regarding the nature and merits of each of the underlying claims for the Government to evaluate its potential liability. This burden, the court held, is on the claimant, and is not met by providing the Government with the docket numbers of the underlying lawsuits or by relying on the Government's general familiarity with asbestos litigation. 43 19 On October 1, 1981, after the District Court's opinion was filed but before the Second Circuit's, Keene presented the same federal agencies with a new notice of claim. It is this notice of claim which is at issue in the instant case. The 1981 notice consists of one Standard Form 95 with several attachments, and is similar to the earlier notice in all but a few respects. 44 The 1981 notice seeks recovery in the amount of $14,878,850 without referring to additional amounts yet to be ascertained; it covers 9,822 underlying lawsuits against Keene. 45 Of the 9,822 underlying suits, approximately 1,700 cases were listed as settled with the specific settlement amount specified, and another 202 were listed as dismissed or otherwise resolved. 46 The only other difference between the notices--apart from the number of underlying claims and amounts claimed in recovery--lies in several additional schedules, appended to the 1981 notice, listing Keene's insurance carriers and policy deductibles, and documenting amounts paid in settlements and judgments for those claims against Keene then resolved. 47 Keene filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to collect the claim represented by this presentment (Keene II ). 48