In Premo v. US, No. 09-1426, the circuit court dealt with an appeal in an action brought against the government arising from injuries sustained by plaintiff when she was struck by a USPS postal truck.
The district court below had found that, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Michigan state law (in this case the Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act) applies to plaintiff's claim for personal injury benefits. The circuit court affirmed this ruling, rejecting plaintiff's claims that "...Michigan's No-Fault Act should not apply for three reasons: (1) "the Government failed to timely raise [the] No-Fault [statute] as an affirmative defense, and it should not have been permitted to rely on the argument without first obtaining leave to amend its pleadings"; (2) "in order to avoid diverse treatment of federal interests in the several states" and avoid running afoul of federal supremacy; and (3) "the Government must be estopped from relying on the No-Fault statute in this case, because it officially maintained that the statute did not apply (under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause) for more than a year before inexplicably requesting that No-Fault law be applied."
However, a grant of economic damages to plaintiff is reversed where, because the government can be held liable without a finding of fault pursuant to the No-Fault Act (i.e. it is a strict liability law), plaintiff cannot recover economic damages under the FTCA. Lastly, a determination that plaintiff was not entitled to interest and attorneys' fees is affirmed.
Related Resources
The district court below had found that, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, Michigan state law (in this case the Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act) applies to plaintiff's claim for personal injury benefits. The circuit court affirmed this ruling, rejecting plaintiff's claims that "...Michigan's No-Fault Act should not apply for three reasons: (1) "the Government failed to timely raise [the] No-Fault [statute] as an affirmative defense, and it should not have been permitted to rely on the argument without first obtaining leave to amend its pleadings"; (2) "in order to avoid diverse treatment of federal interests in the several states" and avoid running afoul of federal supremacy; and (3) "the Government must be estopped from relying on the No-Fault statute in this case, because it officially maintained that the statute did not apply (under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause) for more than a year before inexplicably requesting that No-Fault law be applied."
However, a grant of economic damages to plaintiff is reversed where, because the government can be held liable without a finding of fault pursuant to the No-Fault Act (i.e. it is a strict liability law), plaintiff cannot recover economic damages under the FTCA. Lastly, a determination that plaintiff was not entitled to interest and attorneys' fees is affirmed.
Related Resources
ShareThis
