DC v Beretta: Count IV in the Superior Court

This post continues my analysis of the DC v Beretta decision in the DC Superior Court. This is not the final resolution of the case; and this count specifically deals with the subrogated claims raised under public reimbursement statutes -- or in layman's terms, the District seeking reimbursement for services provided or costs incurred on behalf of someone else who was injured (in this case, emergency personnel) and whose original claim is the actual cause of action. This is basically what an insurance company does in the case of legal action: they pay you, and they sue other parties on your behalf, if necessary, to recover the costs of what they paid you.

Count IV: Subrogated Claims

Here's what the decision has to say about the subrogation claims overall:

The District?s subrogation claims are beset with many pleading deficiencies. The Complaint is oddly organized and worded in a variety of ways. There is an ambiguity as to whether the District relies on the three subrogation statutes as the basis for its right to sue in any of the substantive Counts other than Count I. In either event, the subrogation claims must be dismissed.

So, at least according to the judge, the District's lawyering here is very muddy. More specifically, the District has failed to include the identities of those individuals whose claims it is subrogating; failed to include an assignment of claim from those employees whose claims are being subrogated, when such assignment is required; failure to detail the specific claims and claimants it is seeking to subrogate.

To use the insurance analogy, it's like suing Ford or GM, claiming that their products were involved in a car accident that injured an employee, and refusing to specify which employee, which vehicle hit him or her, when and where the accident occurred, or what specific costs were incurred as a result of the accident.

In this respect, this claim reminds me very much of the tobacco lawsuits again; very broad, very sweeping, trying to handle a broad "public health" claim all at once rather than litigating each case individually or using a class action, and basically engaging in extortion: settle the lawsuit for some amount of money, even though it's meritless, and we'll withdraw the case rather than risking an even bigger loss in front of a jury.

In addition to the failure to identify the specific claims and claimants, those claims dealing with the costs for police and firefighters are invalid because the District is barred from filing suits for injuries sustained while performing their ordinary public duties -- the professional rescuers doctrine.

There may be some subrogated claims which do not fall under that doctrine, but those claims also fail due to lack of specific identification. As the decision puts it, "a plaintiff cannot wear a mask". His or her identity and the basis of his or her claim must be revealed.

Finally, the lawsuit also seeks to recover damages for future, speculative costs. That's so obviously invalid it's hard to believe it was included at all -- except that similar ideas and claims were included, successfully, in the tobacco lawsuits. (Most of those lawsuits settled out rather than going to trial, which means the legal validity of the future damages is not necessarily established precedent).

The District does win a very minor point in this section: they are permitted to aggregate claims without enumerating the details of the specific incidents for each claim, at least with regard to this count. However, it's only a partial victory, since the judge rules that they are still required to detail the individuals whose claims are subrogated.

Posted on 2005-08-24 21:19:15.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email: