McLaughlin v. United States, 1089.
Decision Date | 12 December 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 1089.,1089. |
Citation | 74 F.2d 506 |
Parties | McLAUGHLIN v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
M. A. Cox, of Chandler, Okl. (Roscoe Cox, of Chandler, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Young M. Smith, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Wm. C. Lewis, U. S. Atty., and Wade H. Loofbourrow, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Oklahoma City, Okl., Will G. Beardslee, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., and Wilbur C. Pickett, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.
This is an action on a policy of war risk insurance. A jury trial was waived and the cause tried to the court. At the conclusion of the trial the court dismissed the action on the ground that no disagreement existed, and that it was without jurisdiction.
The only question presented here is whether there was a disagreement.
The claim for insurance benefits was filed on March 25, 1930, and denied on April 10, 1930, by a regional manager of the Veterans' Bureau at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This action was filed after the enactment of section 4, Act of July 3, 1930, which amended section 19, World War Veterans' Act 1924 (38 USCA § 445).1
War risk insurance policies are contractual obligations of the government, yet they confer no right of action on the insured or his beneficiary independently of the sovereign will. The rule that the United States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing. Lynch v. United States, 292 U. S. 571, 581, 54 S. Ct. 840, 78 L. Ed. 1434; United States v. Earwood (C. C. A.5) 71 F.(2d) 507. One of the conditions upon which this consent has been granted, is the existence of a disagreement, and such disagreement is a jurisdictional prerequisite. United States v. Burleyson (C. C. A. 9) 44 F.(2d) 502. Statutes enacted prior to the amendment of July 3, 1930, made disagreement a condition precedent to suit, but did not define the term "disagreement."2
Under such statutes a denial of a claim by a regional manager of the Veterans' Bureau would have constituted a valid disagreement. In Mara v. United States (D. C. N. Y.) 54 F.(2d) 397, 398, the court said:
But Congress by the amendment of July 3, 1930, required, as a prerequisite to jurisdiction by the courts, that the claimant exhaust his administrative remedies, by having the claim for benefits denied "by the director or some one acting in his name on an appeal to the director." Fouts v. United States (C. C. A. 5) 67 F.(2d) 249, 250; United States v. Earwood (C. C. A. 5) 71 F.(2d) 507; Mara v. United States (D. C. N. Y.) 54 F.(2d) 397.
It is contended that since the claim for benefits was filed and denied before July 3, 1930, the amendment, because of the exception clause contained therein, is not applicable.3 The exception clause reads as follows: "This section, as amended, with the exception of this paragraph that is, the definition of claim and disagreement, shall apply to all suits now pending against the United States." We think the meaning of this clause is clear. Congress by excluding from the definitions of "claim" and "disagreement" all pending suits, intended, under the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, that such definitions should apply to all suits thereafter filed. That intention is further shown by the fact that another year was given in which to file a suit, plus such time as might elapse between the making of the claim and the denial of it.
It is our opinion that the amendment of July 3, 1930, is applicable to this action, and the lower court was right in holding that it was without jurisdiction.
The judgment is affirmed.
1 Section 19, supra, as amended by Act July 3, 1930, § 4 (38 USCA § 445), in part reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leyerly v. United States, 3456.
...In other words, a disagreement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of a suit on the insurance contract. McLaughlin v. United States, 10 Cir., 74 F.2d 506; United States v. Journey, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 772. And a disagreement arises only when a claim has been filed with the Vete......
-
In re Tst Biomedical Elecs. Co.
... In re tst biomedical electronics Co., Ltd. No. 88824214 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board May ... ...
-
United States v. Rasmussen
...in an action to recover on a contract of war risk insurance. Wilson v. United States, 10 Cir., 70 F.2d 176; McLaughlin v. United States, 10 Cir., 74 F. 2d 506. But whether it exists depends upon the facts. It will be noted that the general allegations in the amendment to the second amended ......
-
Johnson v. United States, 1759.
...to the maintenance of an action of a contract of war risk insurance. Wilson v. United States, 10 Cir., 70 F.2d 176; McLaughlin v. United States, 10 Cir., 74 F.2d 506; United States v. Journey, 10 Cir., 82 F.2d 772. The purpose in requiring that a claim be filed as a prerequisite to suit is ......