Bruzos v. United States
17-1408
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 3, 2017Background
- Consolidated docket of numerous Hurricane Sandy-related insurance suits pending in the Court of Federal Claims; the court scheduled a status conference and directed counsel to consider district-court case-management orders used in Sandy litigation.
- The opinion reproduces and adopts procedural practices from Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey Hurricane Sandy Case Management Orders addressing mass-joinder, case relation/consolidation, expedited disclosures, privilege logs, and ADR (arbitration/mediation).
- Courts identified widespread "mass joinder" filings (many plaintiffs joined in single complaints solely by sharing an insurer) and ordered dismissal of all but the first-named plaintiff in misjoined actions unless properly refiled.
- For cases involving the same property (e.g., separate wind and flood claims), the courts ordered relation/assignment to the same judge and encouraged consolidation for discovery to avoid inconsistent rulings and duplicate effort.
- The orders mandate a uniform, expedited automatic-disclosure regime for plaintiffs and defendants (initial document lists and explanations within fixed short time frames), required privilege logs, and early referral to court-annexed arbitration or mediation with tight deadlines for completion.
- The District of New Jersey order also directed automatic dismissal of certain claims and parties (jury demands, state-law extracontractual claims, punitive damages, FEMA or FEMA officers in certain suits), subject to a narrow reinstatement procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misjoinder / mass joinder | Joint filings are efficient and save filing fees | Mass joinder is improper; separate plaintiffs should file separately | Court ordered dismissal of all but the first-named plaintiff in misjoined actions and required identification of additional misjoined cases for correction |
| Relation/consolidation of cases involving same property | Some counsel opposed relation/consolidation | Defendants and court argued common facts (same property) favor relation to avoid duplication/inconsistent rulings | Court ordered related assignment of all cases involving the same property to the same judge and encouraged consolidation for discovery |
| Expedited automatic discovery / disclosures | Plaintiffs sought streamlined procedures to reduce cost and speed resolution | Defendants supported uniform disclosures to evaluate claims and defenses early | Court adopted uniform automatic disclosures (itemized damages, policy numbers, supporting docs) and reciprocal defendant disclosures within short deadlines; failure to exchange bars use in ADR |
| Dismissal of certain claims/parties (NJ order) | Plaintiffs had asserted jury demands, state-law bad-faith/punitive claims, and added FEMA or officials | Defendants argued such claims are precluded in NFIP/WYO contexts and unnecessary parties should be dismissed | Court dismissed jury demands, state-law extracontractual claims, punitive damages, and certain FEMA parties; allowed motion to reinstate within 30 days with legal basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (Sup. Ct.) (Seventh Amendment jury right does not apply to suits against the United States)
- Van Holt v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 163 F.3d 161 (3d Cir.) (WYO-company suits effectively suits against the federal government under the NFIA)
- C.E.R. 1988, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 386 F.3d 263 (3d Cir.) (state-law claims are preempted by NFIA when tied to disallowance of insurance claims)
- Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D.N.J.) (punitive damages not available in NFIP actions)
- 3608 Sounds Ave. Condo. Ass’n v. S.C. Ins. Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 499 (D.N.J.) (state common-law remedies like punitive damages and attorney’s fees not cognizable under NFIA)