Casey v. United States Postal Service, Civ. A. No. 84-1854-C.

Decision Date30 July 1985
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 84-1854-C.
Citation613 F. Supp. 362
PartiesGemma C. CASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

John F. Canty, Jr., Concord, Mass., for plaintiffs.

Asst. U.S. Atty. Marianne B. Bowler, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

CAFFREY, Chief Judge.

This is a civil action brought by Gemma C. Casey and John F. Canty, Jr. against the United States Postal Service. Jurisdiction is claimed on the basis of the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Plaintiffs allege that they are husband and wife and residents of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. They further allege that on April 14, 1981 a motor vehicle operated by Gemma C. Casey was involved in a collision with a U.S. Mail truck at the intersections of Route 62 and 2 in Concord, Massachusetts. Plaintiff, Gemma Casey alleges that her vehicle was struck from behind by the mail truck as a result of which she alleges she sustained various physical injuries. Plaintiff, John F. Canty, Jr. seeks recovery for emotional distress allegedly caused by his being informed of his wife's accident and for loss of consortium. The matter is now before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by the United States for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the memorandum of law filed by the United States, the United States contends that plaintiffs are barred from maintaining the instant case because of their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The record discloses that three days prior to the expiration of the two year statute of limitations, plaintiffs submitted a Standard Form 95 to the Concord, Massachusetts Post Office. Item 10 of the standard form was completed by plaintiffs as follows: "A. Property Damage — `Approx. $2,050.00;' B. Personal Injury — `not less than ... $250,000.00;' D. total — `Unknown.'" A photostatic copy of this Standard Form as filed is appended to Affidavit of Gemma C. Casey.

This Standard Form 95 was received by the claims service of the United States Post Office on April 19, 1983 and the claims service notified plaintiff on December 14, 1983 that federal regulations require all claims be made for a sum certain and that their claim for an unknown amount did not constitute the filing of an administrative claim and therefore did not toll the statute of limitations.

This action is controlled by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) and 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a). 28 U.S.C. § 2675 provides "an action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages ... unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal Agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing. ..."

28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a) provides: "... a claim shall be deemed to have been presented when a Federal agency receives ... an executed Standard Form 95 ... accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain for ... personal injury ... alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident." (emphasis added).

It is settled law that the Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. In United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 590, 61 S.Ct. 767, 771, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941) the Supreme Court in construing the Tucker Act's limited waiver of sovereign immunity stated "the section must be interpreted in light of its function in giving consent of the government to be sued, which consent, since it is a relinquishment of a sovereign immunity must be strictly interpreted." In Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276, 77 S.Ct. 269, 273, 1 L.Ed.2d 306 (1957), the Supreme Court re-endorsed the principles announced in United States...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kokaras v. US, Civ. No. 90-198-S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • November 7, 1990
    ...and failed to specify "total" damages, failed to satisfy the administrative presentment requirement. Casey v. United States Postal Service, 613 F.Supp. 362, 363-364 (D.C.Mass.1985) (resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint) (citing Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276,......
  • Shock v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 3, 1988
    ...a fatal flaw in the administrative claim procedure required to be exhausted by 28 U.S.C. § 2675. See, e.g., Casey v. United States Postal Service, 613 F.Supp. 362 (D.Mass.1985). The plaintiff's second administrative claim, this time requesting a sum certain, was filed August 13, 1986, well ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT