Court Opinion

ID: 9455217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:14:48.733281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:30.097714
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Judge
(concurring):
I join in the result and in the opinion except for Part III. Unlike the court I would not disavow our jurisdiction to entertain contingent claims by the United States against third party indemni-tors such as General Steel Tank, but would, instead, establish a rule of discretion under which the court can decide, either case-by-case or by type of case, whether or not it will entertain the Government’s claim over against the in-demnitor.
*1064Though, as the court observes, the issue has never before been squarely posed to us, it is fair to say that the general understanding has been, for over two decades, that the Court of Claims does have jurisdiction, under Section 14(b) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. § 114(b) (1964), of contingent claims-by the United States against indemnitors or others under a duty to save it harmless from judgments such as the one sought by plaintiff. See the expressions in Richfield Oil Corp. v. United States, 151 F.Supp. 333, 335, 138 Ct.Cl. 520, 523 (1957); Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. United States, 364 F.2d 415, 416, 418, 176 Ct.Cl. 694, 696, 699 (1966); Christy Corp. v. United States, 387 F.2d 395, 397-398, 181 Ct.Cl. 768, 773 (1967); Schwartz and Jacoby, Litigation With the Federal Government (1969), § 14.109, pp. 158-59 (pre-publi-cation ed.).
I do not find this hitherto-accepted reading too difficult to reconcile with the statutory language or purpose. The latter part of 41 U.S.C. § 114(b) authorizes “claims and contingent claims [by the United States] for the recovery of money hereafter paid by the United States in respect of the transaction or matter which constitutes the subject matter of such case * * Once the plaintiff prevails in an action against the Government and his judgment is paid, the suit by the Government against the indemnifier becomes one “for the recovery of money hereafter paid by the United States”, i. e. paid by the defendant after the passage of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944. The literal language thus covers the case of money paid by the United States as a result of a judgment of this court. The Attorney General, it is true, spoke in his letter of “money already paid in respect of the transaction or matter in controversy” (emphasis added), but that statement, in my view, simply gave the chief illustration of the coverage of this part of the statute, and did not purport to be all-inclusive or to present an entirely accurate paraphrase. It does not seem likely to me that the Congress, which was interested in avoiding multiple litigation, would wish to deprive this court of jurisdiction to adjudicate a government claim against an indemnifier in a case in which there was no real controversy over the latter’s liability. • Under the view the court now adopts, the Government is forced to bring a useless suit in a district court even though the in-demnitor would be willing to stipulate for judgment against it in this court (once the liability of the United States to the original plaintiff is determined) or where the defenses to indemnification are wholly frivolous or unworthy of serious consideration. Section 114 (b) does not seem to me to compel such proliferation of needless litigation.
But like the court I am aware that a controversy between the Government and the indemnitor over the validity, scope, or coverage of the indemnity agreement could catapult us into a lengthy- and complicated proceeding essentially unrelated to the main suit by the plaintiff against the Government. I would resolve that problem, which the history of this case proves to be a real one, by interpreting § 114(b) as giving the court discretion to hear such contingent claims by the United States against a third-party indemnifier, but not requiring us to do so where that aspect of the litigation would be too onerous or too foreign to the main case. Section 114(b) speaks in permissive, not mandatory, terms; it says that the court “may” summon third parties and “may” notify interested persons to appear; also, it gives the court “jurisdiction to adjudicate” respective interests and “to award several judgments,” but it does not say that the court must exercise that jurisdiction although it is inconvenient or troublesome in the particular case, and another forum is readily available. This means, to me, that the court can exercise its discretion in light of the circumstances and is not forced to clog *1065its pipelines with issues and proceedings that can as easily or better be tried and decided elsewhere.
In this litigation, it is unnecessary to determine at this time whether the Government’s claim over against General Steel should be heard here as a matter of discretion since the court holds (Part II of its opinion) — and I agree — that it will be necessary for the plaintiff to file a new petition if it desires to recover for infringing devices obtained by the Government from General Steel. In any event, this is the kind of third-party matter in which I think that discretion calls for a refusal to adjudicate the Government’s demand. As the court suggests, General Steel has raised non-frivolous issues as to the validity and coverage of its indemnity agreement. These questions are wholly different from those litigated in the plaintiff’s patent suit against the United States, and might well require a trial of their own. There is no advantage in having those separate issues tried and determined here, and a district court is quite open to the Government. If the contingent claim remained here, on the other hand, our processes could be bogged down by this extraneous litigation which is basically independent of the patent issues involved in Bowser’s action against the United States for infringement. Policies comparable to those underlying the legal rulings in Oliver-Finnie Co. v. United States, 137 F.Supp. 719, 133 Ct.Cl. 555 (1956); Richfield Oil Corp. v. United States, 151 F.Supp. 333, 138 Ct.Cl. 520, 523 (1957); Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. United States, 364 F.2d 415, 176 Ct.Cl. 694 (1966); and Christy Corp v. United States, 387 F.2d 395, 181 Ct.Cl. 768 (1967), point toward a refusal, as an exercise of discretion, to take on such an unnecessary burden.
DURFEE, J.,
joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.