Posted on 05/28/2011 10:56:22 AM PDT by Ken H
US government refuses to pay damages for Ferrari F50 destroyed during an FBI joy ride.
The US Department of Justice is deploying all of its legal muscle to avoid paying the price after an FBI agent destroyed an exotic car during a joy ride. After nearly two years of trying to recover the money owed by the government, Motors Insurance Company filed a lawsuit against the government seeking the full $750,000 value of the wrecked 1995 Ferrari F50.
The vehicle originally had been stolen in 2003 from a Ferrari dealer in Pennsylvania. Motors paid the $630,000 insurance claim, giving the firm title to the missing exotic. On August 12, 2008, the FBI stumbled upon the car in Kentucky during a separate investigation. The agency held the vehicle with permission from Motors. On May 27, 2009, FBI Special Agent Frederick C. Kingston got behind the wheel of a 1995 Ferrari F50 with by Assistant US Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson in the passenger seat.
"Just a few seconds after we left the parking lot, we went around a curve, and the rear of the car began sliding," Thompson wrote in an email to Managing Assistant US Attorney E.J. Walbourn on the day of the incident. "The agent tried to regain control, but the car fishtailed and slid sideways up onto the curb. The vehicle came to rest against a row of bushes and a small tree. Both myself and the agent exited of our own power."
A claims adjuster noted the frame was bent, rendering the vehicle -- now worth $750,000 in working condition -- a total loss. DOJ began stonewalling when Motors tried to get information about what happened. The agency refused to honor a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for any documents regarding the storage and use of the vehicle on the day of the accident. The request was denied as "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Motors filed a separate lawsuit to force the disclosure of agency records concerning the Ferrari.
"Based on the denial of Motors Insurance Company's claim, plaintiff anticipates that DOJ and FBI will claim immunity against civil liability under 28 USC Section 2680(c) and assert that the vehicle was damaged while in the detention of law enforcement authorities," Motors attorney Richard C. Kraus wrote in an April 14 lawsuit. "The information requested under FOIA and withheld by DOJ and FBI will be necessary to determine whether 28 USC Section 2680(c) applies."
That is precisely what DOJ has done. The agency insists sovereign immunity prohibits the suit, and no negligence claim can arise because federal law prohibits claims against the government for goods damaged while detained by law enforcement.
"The exception applies to bar suit against the United States and does not permit litigation over the reasonableness of the law enforcement officer's conduct in question," Assistant Attorney General Tony West wrote in a May 9 brief to the court. "The broad interpretation of the detention-of-goods exception, coupled with the necessity that the court construe the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity strictly in favor of the sovereign, require a finding that the United States has not consented to this sort of suit and plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal law. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice."
US District Judge Avern Cohn on Tuesday set a June 22 date for final briefs on the government's motion to dismiss the suit.
Hard to say what this is. Is it basically Soviet, basically banana republic, or a combination of both? Down on the Animal Farm, the pigs are more equal than the other animals.
Before y’all jump on me .. I am a racist (as of zero’s administration .. and limited to zero and his administration)
How much y’wanna’ bet them two were bruthuhs ?
Rahm skipped town
I never imagined I'd hear about it again!
Something about the Magna Carta and the rule of law.
lol...yeah, blame it on the car instead of the incompetent loser behind the wheel. That's the ticket.
“A claims adjuster noted the frame was bent, rendering the vehicle — now worth $750,000 in working condition — a total loss.”
A minor aside, but a bent frame doesn’t automatically render a vehicle a total loss - it’s a matter of degree.
Would they please dump that worthless hunk of junk off in my driveway?
Let me guess, the pair of federal idiots got a promotion?
Oh! And to add;
FBI Special Agent Frederick C. Kingston should be fryin’ burgers for a job.
“Just a few seconds after we left the parking lot, we went around a curve, and the rear of the car began sliding,”
Ya....it just started “sliding”....$500,000+ sports cars are notoriously unstable.
Not only did they steal it for a joy-ride and destroy it, they were driving recklessly and above the speed limit.
And, there’s no indication if they were fired.
This is absolute corruption.
IIRC, the F50 has a carbon-fiber frame. Can’t be straightened.
I can’t find a pic of Fast Freddy. I’ll bet the doofus tried to steer out of the skid. I learned how to “drift” a go-kart when I was 13.
This is total crap, fire the two pond scum and hand over all of their personal property and money and pay the balance. Damn what a crock.
When I made delivery's in a big truck in the DC/Maryland/N Virginia area, I was never so amazed at how arrogant (unofficial self poll ... approx 40% vanity license plates) those drivers are.
No class, no patience and no common decency of the road.
Taking a car in their care on an *unauthorized joy ride does not in any sense conform to ordinary diligent care.
*OF course I will admit total error if the procedures for storing recovered valuable stolen property includes provision for joy rides for any employee.
During the French Revolution, I wonder what happened to the French Bureau of Investigation. Are they daring us? Are they wanting to start violence against the people?
“IIRC, the F50 has a carbon-fiber frame. Can’t be straightened.”
In which case every time a relatively minor accident damaged the frame of one of these vehicles (it doesn’t take a huge impact to tweak a frame) it would result in totaling a $750,000 vehicle. Even if one could afford a car like that, who would want something that fragile/non-repairable? Even folks who can pay $750,000 for a car aren’t generally interested in buying another one at the drop of a hat (or paying for the insurance necessary to cover that kind of loss severity/frequency).
If nothing else, it seems it should have replaceable sections (or a replaceable frame assembly...I’ve appraised/supervised thousands of auto losses but never on this vehicle and claim no expertise on it).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.