Robert I. Bovell and Beverly Bovell v. United States of America, Department of Defense
735 F.2d 755
3rd Cir.
1984
Check Treatment

OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

' I.

Plаintiffs, who are husband and wife, brought suit on May 6, 1982 against the United States for injuries plaintiff husband received оn December 3, 1979 while aboard the U.S.S. Portland, a public vessel, owned, possessed, and controlled by the United States. On that date the ship was moored at Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (Sun) for repairs. Robert Bovell, who apparently was a Sun employee, was injured when he fell from a lаdder on the ship as it broke away from a wall. Plaintiffs claim that the accident was a result of the government’s negligence in maintaining and inspecting the ship. Plaintiffs appeal from the distriсt court order denying, upon reconsideration, their request to vacate its judgment for the defendants on the grounds of the statute of limitations.

II.

On December 1, 1981, almost two years after the accident, plaintiffs filed an administrative claim with the Navy relying on the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. (FTCA). The Navy denied this claim on December 21, 1981, 1 and, рursuant to the procedures specified by the FTCA, plaintiffs filed a claim in federal district court on May 6, 1982. The government moved to dismiss, contending that the claim could not be brought under the FTCA but ■instead was governed by the Public Vessel Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 781 et seq. (PVA), which contains a two-year statute of limitations.

The trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment, which it granted. The court held that the PVA applied because the ship was on navigable wаters when the accident occurred and that the statute of limitations thus barred the claim. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‍arguing that the statute of limitations should have been tоlled while they were seeking an administrative remedy. The court held that the limitations period wаs jurisdictional and thus could not be tolled by the plaintiffs’ mistaken belief that the FTCA applied.

III. .

The Publiс Vessel Act, which allows suits against the United States for injuries caused by its public vessels, incorpоrates the two year statute of limitations of the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 741 et seq. (SAA). As the district court observed, the PVA and the SAA are both exclusive remedies. See United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 177-81, 96 S.Ct. 1319, 1327-29, 47 L.Ed.2d 653 (1976); Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir.1983); Kelly v. United States, 531 F.2d 1144, 1149 (2d Cir.1976). Plaintiffs have abandoned the argument they made in the district сourt that the two year statute of limitations is not applicable. Instead they contend оnly that the statute should have been tolled.

Plaintiffs proffer two bases as justifying tolling: first, their filing of an administrаtive claim under the FTCA within two years of the accident, and second, the “appropriаte circumstances” ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‍exception. The Supreme Court has construed the SAA statute of limitаtions, 46 U.S.C. § 745, as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the SAA. McMahon v. United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27, 72 S.Ct. 17, 19, 96 L.Ed. 26 (1951). See also T.J. Falgout Boats, Inc. v. United States, 508 F.2d 855, 858 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1000, 95 S.Ct. 2398, 44 L.Ed.2d 667 (1975). In McMahon, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the *757 statutе starts running from the date of injury, not from the date of denial of the plaintiffs claim by an administrative agency. Thereafter, it has generally been agreed that the statute of limitations in maritime actions is not tolled pending resolution of administrative claims erroneously filed pursuant to thе FTCA. Williams v. United States, 711 F.2d at 898-99; T.J. Falgout Boats, Inc. v. United States, 508 F.2d at 858; Roberts v. United States, 498 F.2d 520, 526 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1070, 95 S.Ct. 656, 42 L.Ed.2d 665 (1974).

We find inapposite Northern Metal Co. v. United States, 350 F.2d 833 (3d Cir.1965), on which plaintiffs rely. In Northern Metal, we held that when the government imposed claims dispute procedures on a contrаctor, SAA’s the two-year limitations period would be tolled pending completion of the administrative procedures. Id. at 838-39. Here, however, no statute, regulation, or contract required plaintiff to file an administrative claim or resort to an administrative procedure as a prerequisite to bringing suit. Thus, we agree with the district court there is no basis to toll the statute for thе filing of such a claim.

Plaintiffs argue that even if they are not entitled to tolling as a matter of law, the statute of limitations should be tolled for them ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‍in this case. However, the latitude which has allowed tolling of statutes of limitations under certain other statutory schemes, see, e.g., American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 552-63, 94 S.Ct 765, 765-66, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974) (Clayton Act); Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Co., 380 U.S. 424, 434-35, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 1057-58, 13 L.Ed.2d 941 (1965) (Federal Employеrs’ Liability Act), is usually not applied to statutes waiving sovereign immunity. See, e.g., United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18, 100 S.Ct. 352, 356-57, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979) (FTCA); Deakyne v. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, 701 F.2d 271, 274 n. 4 (3d Cir.1983) (Quiet Title Act).

*748 I understand and know what I am doing. No prоmises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coersion of any kind hаs been used against me.

*757 Even if we were to agree with the Fifth Circuit that section 745 could be tollеd in “appropriate circumstances,” see McCormick v. United States, 680 F.2d 345, 351 (5th Cir.1982), we do not believe this case presents such a situation. In the only tort action cited in which the SAA statute was tolled, plaintiff ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‍had been taken as a prisoner of war shortly after receiving his injuries, and thus was truly incapable of filing his claim during his internment. Osbourne v. United States, 164 F.2d 767 (2d Cir.1947).

Plaintiffs’ only basis for contending that their case demonstrates “appropriate circumstances” is their alleged reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s first decision in McCormick, 645 F.2d 299 (5th Cir.1981), subsequently vacated in 680 F.2d 345, which had permit-ted suit such аs this to be brought under the FTCA. We do not regard this reliance as a sufficient basis for tolling. The first McCormick decision conflicted with those of the other circuits, and with the rule of the Supreme Court in McMahon v. United States, supra, that a plаintiff cannot delay the running of section ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‍745 by filing an administrative claim,

For the foregoing reasons, wе will affirm the judgment of the district court,

Notes

1

. Although the Bovells’ brief seems to claim that this denial occurred on May 6, 1982 (Brief for Appellants at 5), they argued below that the denial occurred on December 21, 1981. The trial judge accepted this date. (App. at 58a n. 2).