Harris v. United States

• Citation: 5 F. Supp. 368
• Decision Date: 04 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 893.,893.
• Parties: HARRIS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Idaho

5 F. Supp. 368

HARRIS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 893.

District Court, D. Idaho, E. D.

December 4, 1933.

Merrill & Merrill, of Pocatello, Idaho, and Hawley & Worthwine, of Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff.

J. A. Carver, U. S. Dist. Atty., for the District of Idaho, and E. H. Casterlin, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., and R. L. Slaughter, Atty. of the Department of Justice, all of Boise, Idaho, for the United States.

CAVANAH, District Judge.

The plaintiff, as guardian of Thomas G. Harris, an insane person, brings this action on a yearly renewable war risk term insurance policy in the sum of $10,000 for total and permanent disability benefits.

The complaint was filed June 23, 1933, and alleges, among other things, that the disability of Thomas G. Harris is manic depressive psychosis and insanity, and general weakness and nervousness, incurred during the time of his military service, and that he has been insane at all times since his discharge from the Army, and while the policy was in force.

The government has demurred to the complaint challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds (a) that Congress has by section 17 of the Act of March 20, 1933 (38 USCA §§ 717, 718), repealed all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable insurance and denied the right to sue the United States thereafter on such insurance policies; (b) that the action was not instituted on or before July 3, 1931, as provided by section 445, title 38 USCA; and (c) that no disagreement exists as required by the World War Veterans' Act as amended July 3, 1930 (38 USCA § 445), which is necessary to confer jurisdiction on the court.

The plaintiff asserts that, as all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance have been repealed, the suit is brought under the Tucker Act, 28 USCA § 41, subd. (20), which grants to the District Courts of the United States original jurisdiction of all claims "upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States," and that "claims of * * * idiots, lunatics, insane persons * * * entitled to the claim, shall not be barred if the suit be brought within three years after the disability has ceased."

The repealing act being section 17 of the Act of March 20, 1933 (38 USCA § 717), in so far as relevant is: "All laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance are hereby repealed." We have then the straight question as to whether the right to sue the United States upon the insurance policy here is granted under the Tucker Act, or whether such right was restricted to the War Risk Insurance Act under which the policy was authorized to be issued and which was repealed prior to the institution of the present action.

The Tucker Act having given the right to sue the United States "upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States," we are, therefore, confronted with the question of whether it applies to the right to sue on those claims of insurance contracts which were authorized to be issued and suit brought thereon under the War Risk Insurance Act where the right to sue is not barred by the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Tucker Act (28 USCA § 41 subd. (20), and the Acts of May 29, 1928 and July 3, 1930, amendatory to the World War Veterans' Act (38 USCA § 445). Recognizing the settled principle that federal courts have no jurisdiction except that conferred by the Federal Constitution or federal statutes and that the United States can only be sued with its consent and under the conditions imposed by Congress, we find that Congress has on several occasions extended the time within which suit may be brought on these insurance contracts, and on May 29, 1928, and July 3, 1930, permitted suit to be brought against the United States on such contracts if done so within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made or within one year after July 3, 1930, and that insane persons or persons under other legal disabilities, or persons rated as incompetent shall have three years in which to bring suit after the removal of their disabilities. Consent to sue the United States then having been authorized by Congress and the period of limitation within which suit may be brought being prescribed, and exempting therefrom insane persons whose disability had not been removed, it is obvious that an insane person, through his guardian, may bring suit upon a policy at any time after the right has accrued and while he remains insane. The United States undoubtedly may legislate to change a remedy or announce a policy or prescribe a limitation of time within which suit may be brought against it, and, when it does so, by Congress saying that suit may be brought, and that insane persons are not precluded from suing while they are insane, its consent is clear. The complaint discloses that the insured, Harris, became insane during the life of the policy and ever since has been so insane. His policy was, therefore, in force at the time of the adoption of the repealing Act of March 20, 1933, and an action not being barred by the statute of limitations appearing in the acts referred to and in the Tucker Act the obligation of the United States to pay a fixed amount under the policy could not be destroyed by subsequent legislation without a violation of the insured's constitutional rights and the impairment of contract. The effect of the repealing act was to deprive the insured of a remedy to enforce a fixed liability of the United States to make payment of the amount of the policy and to destroy and deprive him of a right which had vested before the repealing act, and one which in every sense is a property right. Such a right was fixed by the law in force...