A federal judge on September 27 absolved the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from any liability after an FBI agent destroyed a $750,000 Ferrari during a joy ride. Motors Insurance Corporation had been seeking to recover the value of a 1995 Ferrari F50 that was in the custody of department officials. Motors dropped a separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit against the department on October 3.
The vehicle in question originally had been stolen in 2003 from Algar Ferrari, a Pennsylvania dealership. Motors paid the $630,000 insurance claim, which gave Motors title to the missing exotic. Ferrari only produced 349 of the highly sought-after F50s, so its value increased over time. On August 12, 2008, the FBI stumbled upon the stolen car in Lexington, Kentucky during an investigation into a separate crime. The agency held the vehicle with permission from Motors while the thief was investigated. On May 27, 2009, FBI Special Agent Frederick C. Kingston got behind the wheel of the Ferrari 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 a superior. “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.”
The car was totaled, and the DOJ refused to accept any responsibility, asserting sovereign immunity. The department stonewalled all requests from Motors seeking information regarding the incident. The Federal Tort Claims Act does allow for an individual to recover damages caused by the negligence of federal employees while acting within the scope of their employment. This law, however, includes a “detention-of-goods” exception, 28 US Code Section 2680(c), that absolves the government from claims “arising in respect of… the detention of any goods” by a law enforcement officer.
US District Court Judge Avern Cohn found that the exception covered the case at hand because the Ferrari was being detained by law enforcement.
“It is certainly unfortunate what befell MIC’s vehicle,” Judge Cohn ruled. “However, the vehicle was damaged while being detained by law enforcement officers within the meaning of Section 2680(c). As such, the government cannot be liable under the FTCA for what occurred. Accordingly, the government’s motion is granted. This case is dismissed.”
Cohn noted that presuming the car was destroyed during a “joy ride” would have made it even harder to recover damages because that would mean the agents had acted outside the scope of their official duties. As such, the government would not be liable for their conduct.
A copy of the ruling is available in a 30k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Motors Insurance Company v. US (US District Court, Eastern District Michigan, 9/27/2011)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
So, are Kingston and Hamilton being held personally responsible for the damages?
Hmm… “sovereign immunity” – I like the sound of that. I’m going to give it a go next time I’m caught doing something that I shouldn’t be doing.
“I’m sorry sir, I’m going to assert my sovereign immunity here. So you and your “laws” can bugger off.”
On a more serious note… If the agents were joy-riding and acting outside of their official duties, which it appears may be the case, that would just make them personally liable, correct?
If they’re personally liable then it’s probably a moot point.
Good luck getting $750K out of an FBI agent.
You can’t get $750k, but you can get a revenge by forcing him to declare bankruptcy.
Wouldn’t the personal liability portion of his homeowners insurance kick in?
Sure you wouldn’t get $750,000, but you’d at least get some money and the satisfaction of not letting the idiot suffer no consequences.
“I’m sorry sir, I’m going to assert my sovereign immunity here. So you and your “laws” can bugger off.”
Sovereign immunity is typically defended by guns, missles, or even nukes.
Ferraris don’t fishtail. Crap drivers do.
I’d like to know what actually happened… For me, I’d treat an F50 like 1000cc sport bike – I’d be f*ckin’ careful.
The fact that these two clowns still have their job, combined with the Judge’s ruling, completely obliterates the idea that this country is built on the Rule of Law. This is corruption writ large.
You expect this sort of baloney in a 3rd world banana republic, not the United States of America.
Judge’s ruling, completely obliterates the idea that this country is built on the Rule of Law.
How do you mean? The law is pretty clear and it was applied correctly by the judge. If you have an issue with 28 US Code Section 2680(c) then call your congressman and ask that it be changed.
the vehicle was damaged while being detained by law enforcement officers within the meaning of Section 2680(c).
The vehicle was emphatically NOT being detained.
Look at it this way, if the agent brought a perpetrator along with him on the joy ride and the prep escaped after the accident it would be hard for the agent to claim he was “detaining” that person.
A detained vehicle is one protected in a locked facility that is removed only with specific purpose of the criminal case.
A detained suspect is one held in a locked facility and only moved with a specific purpose, i.e. to attend a court hearing, not because you want to take the detainee out to lunch.
The vehicle was emphatically NOT being detained.
The insurance company agreed to let the FBI maintain custody of it as part of the investigation.
I agree with jmo. The judge didn’t do anything wrong here. If you have any problem with this law or believe that this law is in conflict with more fundamental constitutions, vent to your legislative representative.
From the decision of the court:
MIC, however, says that because it consented to law enforcement’s request to hold its vehicle as evidence, its consent rendered the status of the vehicle as having been entrusted to law officers, rather than detained by them under § 2680(c).
So it hinges on whether the car was “detained” (in which case the government has sovereign immunity) or whether it was “entrusted” (in which case the government does NOT have sovereign immunity). The court decided it was detained as evidence in the case.
I guess it may be time to have the statute changed to avoid this kind of situation.
It’s the rule of really crappy laws. That’s my feeling. I mean, the two clowns who did this caused material harm, and they’re getting out of it because they’re With the Government.
Yes, the judge ruled the only way he really could in this situation based on my understanding of the law and how it was applied, but we’re still talking about a case where two jackholes don’t have to accept any kind of punishment for a very expensive screwup.
Why are people so upset, seriously? It’s a car that was taken out inappropriately but the insurance company agreed to let them hold onto the car and had long paid off on the title. They also collected 8 years of premiums on the car. Nobody is bankrupt for it and I would be more upset if two good FBI agents died in a car that sounds like it had bad tires on the back or they seriously over-drove that car.
Essentially they were in a grey area of the law just as any of us would be if we drove a vehicle in our physical capacity for work. In most cases it would fall on us for blame. So stop crying “corruption” because this was the CORRECT answer over a weird one-off case.
The judge was understandably afraid of the precedent it would set, which is (to me) what’s wrong with our legal system. If we had a German system the law would be freshly applied each time, not subject to every previous decision ever.
The insurance company is upset because it paid out less years ago than the car was worth today. And it trusted the gov’t to safely hold the car while it waited for the property to which it had title. The report above carefully avoids any hints toward a joy ride, but there was no justifiable reason for 1) the vehicle to leave any parking lot except under control of a licensed tow operator or the legal owner, and 2) the presence of anybody in the passenger seat. After the vehicle was impounded, it should have sat unless reasonably moved for warehousing reasons.
Now the F50 is worth twice the insurance payout, so it’s a $500k (guessing) loss indeed for the insurer. Any business would sue like crazy to get many thousands of their property back.
It’s as if the government found your 10-year old pile of cash in a stolen car, acknowledged it was yours and that they’d give it back eventually, and then destroyed it while playing with it. While you aren’t bankrupt either and had learned to compensate for the loss 10 years ago, it’s still your goddamn money and they inappropriately destroyed it.
bryanska: “If we had a German system the law would be freshly applied each time, not subject to every previous decision ever.”
That’s also how the Chinese system works. I.e. the son of the local CCP party chief secretary would get court dismissal after drunk driving hit and run. You would get 3 years in jail for the same offence.
“The judge was understandably afraid of the precedent it would set, which is (to me) what’s wrong with our legal system. If we had a German system the law would be freshly applied each time, not subject to every previous decision ever.”
Seriously, where’s a good activist judge when you need one?
Um, what you’re asking for is the French system of law. The English system (as we use it) only uses precedent as a FACTOR of the ruling. Any judge can rule any way they choose to on the case and simply let a higher court either agree or overrule. This is firmly set though that you can’t legally sue the US Government over property damage done in this way. They should have named all three to the complaint and saw what stuck.
Also I hate to say this but accrued value has no factor on this case. None what so ever. If they stole 10,000 gold coins in 1955 and recovered them in 2005 the accrued value is there’s for the taking but if the coins were destroyed and were worth less or nothing at all in this situation than they have no real claim to the accrued value. Arguably they really rightfully can only sue for what they paid out in insurance claims for because that is the stated value of the vehicle’s title that was under their ownership.
They have a limited case at best though to fight on since they agreed to let the government keep the car. It’s a sad moment that they lost the ability to resell it for a profit but I am sure they recouped the value in premiums and are doing alright as a company right now. Principles are fun to have but I’m being pragmatic here that I would rather reprimand the officers and tell the insurance company to blow off rather than let them collect on a fluke incident.
To respond to the second person: The story never stated how long the car was held by the dealership and since it wasn’t X Ferrari of Y it’s a second hand dealer. I had a friend who owned a lotus Espirit back in the late 90s and ’00s that was going for about 10K a year in premiums. I’m guessing the Ferrari was going for about that as well. So you figure 4-5 years or private ownership meant they gained 40-50K of premiums. The dealership also more than likely paid less than the Ferrari was worth brand new though arguably by 2003 it may have been accumulating value. Still, the only person to lose money was the insurance company and they failed to demand their car back when they had the chance. They were better off suing the two actors individual.
The insurance company made a payment to the car dealer to cover his loss.
Then the insurance company rightly took ownership of the car but suffered a large loss when the FBI ruined the car.
And somehow you think that 8 years of insurance premiums (from car dealer to insurer) was equal to the value of the car ruined by the FBI?
That no one went bankrupt is not a relevant measure.
You seem to have confused the 3 parties in this story or don’t understand how insurance works.
Further, most people who regularly use an auto for work have clearly defined coverage, be it their employer or themselves.
Nobody is bankrupt for it and I would be more upset if two good FBI agents died . . .
I guess it’s possible they’re way better at their jobs than they are at driving, but it still seems like a leap to call them “good” when all we know about them is that they like to use their job to joyride Ferraris.
Wondering how many times this has happened with *lesser* vehicles. You know, workaday Vipers, Ford GTs, 911 Turbos…
“We’re from the government, and we’re here to help!”
Motors Insurance Corporation (MIC) used to be part of GM – another division like GMAC. I don’t know what is the current ownership of MIC – it may be owned by the same folks who own GMAC – Cerebus – the former “owners” of Chrysler. GMAC turned itself into a “bank” so it could receive TARP funds and is now called Ally Bank. Treasury may have a stake in MIC.
So this may be a case of one government agency (Treasury) losing money due to the actions of another (FBI).
Yeah, I just looked it up; MIC is a subsidiary of Ally Financial, which is 75ish% owned by the US Treasury.
I suspect “The Newspaper” and the automotive blogs care more about this case than either of the parties actually in it.
There ought to be insurance for impoundeded cars. Most people never see them again. My friend was busted for a single joint of marijuana in high school. They impounded his 7-year old Camry and held on to it for months, long after the pot case was over. By that time the fees were worth more than the car, so he surrendered it. Of course he still had the loan to pay off.
Before you think, “he shouldn’t have had pot in the car”, remember that while you’re right, aggressive seizures like these can destroy lives and drive people to life on the margins. It’s been done for excessive speeding, having too much cash on hand, expired plates…
I am a fiscal conservative but I don’t agree with aggressive seizures to raise money. I don’t think it deters crime, either. Nobody says, “dang! I knew that would happen!” Instead, hang out at the city tow lot and watch the jaw-dropping looks of surprise and shock.
The circumstances as to why Kingston and Thompson were driving the vehicle are not entirely clear. At least one document in the record indicates that Thompson was moving the vehicle to return it to MIC.
Seriously? It takes an AUSA to accompany an FBI agent while returning property to its rightful owner? What are the odds that if MIC were notified that they would have flatbedded the damn thing. It’s pretty clear from the pdf of the decision that they weren’t notified – days passed between the accident and the notification it occurred (May 27 to June 17). Is this the FBI’s fault or the US Attorney’s fault? No, unless either of those people is still working at those jobs.
No, unless either of those people is still working at those jobs.
You’d fire an FBI agent because he got in a car accident?
For a serious error in judgement, maybe. These guys must have incredible foresight and judgement. They’re like Blue Angels. A lot rides on their professionalism.
For a serious error in judgement, maybe.
I guess it all depends on what the FBI policy was regarding the return of high value vehicles. If they were following SOP and they didn’t have the discretion to flatbed it – then the problem is with the policy.
We can go around on this all day – the driver’s pure as driven snow or he’s guilty as sin. It’s as irrelevant as any other internet opinion. Getting in the car accident is excusable; the possible circumstances of this accident aren’t. Occasionally, you need to take disciplinary action, pour encourager les autres. Any such action should come after a thorough – and public – investigation. Maybe sovereign immunity still applies. Some questions that should be answered publicly include: Was there a legitimate reason for the agent to be driving this car? Was there a legitimate reason for an AUSA to accompany him? Was the car driven in an appropriate manner for road conditions and driver skill? I’m going to reasonably assume that it takes a lot to completely total a Ferrari and that this wasn’t a simple slide into a curb. Why did it take three weeks for the FBI to get around to notifying MIC?
But it’s over. MIC’s FOI filing has been withdrawn – speculating again, maybe because of MIC’s need to be able to continue working with LEAs at all levels of government. Is it worth it to have LEA’s PO’ed at you for trying to recover your damages? Sounds like the answer is no.
The government still isn’t exonerated. Its owes a duty to us citizens to confirm that people who carry guns – and other people who have the power to litigate with huge resources backing them – can exercise reasonable judgment. Where’s the account of that?
jmo: “You’d fire an FBI agent because he got in a car accident?”
I would arrest anyone (FBI agent included) who touches anything seized by FBI without a permit.
I would arrest anyone (FBI agent included) who touches anything seized by FBI without a permit.
Didn’t it say he was authorized to take the car and return it to the insurance company?
I’d fire an FBI agent and incarcerate him to the fullest extent of the law for abusing his privileges with other people’s property.
If that wasn’t the case I apologize, but I have a sneaking suspicion it was.
Didn’t it say he was authorized to take the car and return it to the insurance company?
The government has policies for everything. Show us plebes that such a policy wasn’t specific to this office and wasn’t post facto pulled out of some boss’ backside. Who needs an impulsive guy with a Glock? Guys who tote guns are like Caesar’s wife – they need to be above suspicion. The circumstances here sound so egregious that the incident should be fully investigated and publicized.
BTW Chuckrs, great response with the “relevant questions” section. Thoughtful and considered.
Is it a great law? No.
Will I do the same thing if I were the judge? Yes.
How to improve this obviously flawed system? Only if “occupying” D.C. works, and in a good way.
If I were the judge and I read ‘the rear end of the car began slipping’, and the car in question was an F50, I’d have a pretty good idea that in no way was the car being ‘detained’. Please.
And yeah, like others on here, I’d have a very difficult time retaining an FBI agent who lacked even the most basic uderstanding of vehicle dynamics, self-restraint, or forthrightness after such an obvious lapse of judgement. This is a person you’d trust with your life? I don’t think so.
So one the onehand we have Average Joe citizens facing a night in jail for not keeping their vehicle tags upto date, and on the other FBI agents who face no consequences for destroying a $750,000 vehicle through plain incompetence and neglect. Pretty pathetic.
Read this and see that sometimes government bureaucrats get their just due: http://volokh.com/2011/10/10/district-court-awards-malicious-1-7-million-for-malicious-prosecutio-after-epa-agent-manufactured-evidence-against-suspect-with-the-apparent-goal-of-spending-more-time-with-his-mistress/#comments
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -Thomas Jefferson
who is “the people”? if you fear the government, but I don’t, which of us gets to be the people?
how is this decision an example of “tyranny over the mind of man”?
reasonable people can disagree, of course, but.
(1) Either The Newspaper didn’t read the decision, or I don’t think that “absolve” means what The Newspaper thinks it means.
(2) There are reasonable (many would say, compelling) arguments for the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This is not some recently-devised insidious power grab. All the judge did here was, you know, call balls and strikes, apply the law as it exists to the facts at hand.
(3) The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not incompatible with a representative democracy or rule of law; if you’re unhappy with its application in this case, as noted in comments above, we are blessed with a system in which each citizen gets three people to represent them in DC. Use it or lose it.
(4) This is really one of those times when one needs to read the decision to be able to comment meaningfully. If you go by the article alone, you’re already, like, three degrees removed from the facts.
(5) And this is important: judges in our system of jurisprudence get to rule on the issues that the parties put before them. Judges don’t get to decide, on their own, which tires need kicking on a particular case. This is a good thing. This is a significant protector of individual rights. MIC got to plead their case however they wanted. After reviewing the facts MIC alleged (and assuming, sans proof, that the facts MIC alleged were true), and applying the law (both statute and earlier, binding decisions), the judge found MIC hadn’t a leg to stand on. The judge doesn’t get to say, “know what? MIC didn’t ask me to, but I’m a do my own digging on why y’all were in that car there.” The same way he wouldn’t be able to say, “know what? You were only charged with speeding, but I’m a do my own digging and see if maybe you weren’t XYZ, too.”
(6) Any system devised by man will, at times, produce results that seem unfair. To expect perfection is unreasonable. There are more things under the sun, etc. etc. MIC lost some cash on a car, this time. They still get to do business in a country where they got a call from the law when a car stolen five years earlier, three states away, from a different owner, was recovered. That, to my ears, sounds pretty good (and pretty darn rule of law).
Please tell me that the F50 can be saved. It’s too good of a car…
@NLB- You are free to go live under a “representative democracy”- I want a return to our representative republic. If you don’t know the difference, go back to school. You are too eager, I think, to defend the abuses of an uncontrolled government employee, supposedly a public servant, caught in a flagrant violation of a citizen’s right of private property. Hiding behind the vagaries of law and legalese does not alter the truth. If anyone not employeed by the government destroyed YOUR car or other property of equal value, would YOU so quickly make excuses for their reckless disregard for YOUR property rights ? If you say yes, it is the response of a liar or a fool. If your answer is no, then you must reconsider your earlier reply.
Mea culpa for the word choice, although in the context of my comment its really a distinction without a difference.
You’ll note that I never once defended the actual conduct of the government employees. Your hypothetical question is a strawman and not worth addressing, except to note that I’d think more of your posts if you were to make them while avoiding backhanded assertions that I am a liar or a fool.
You can’t have it both ways. You can have systems that work with laws, or systems that work with “this seems fair.” (Or I guess, systems that disregard both entirely, but I don’t think anyone here’s advocating for that.) But if you want to go with “this seems fair,” then you’ve got to accept that you’re leaving a hell of a lot to the discretion of the decider. Which, to me, sounds closer to tyranny than the first.
MIC gets to choose how they want to assert their rights. Looks like they chose wrong. Oh well.
A “citizen’s right of private property”? How do you figure? MIC owned the car, and the US. Treasury Department owns 73% of MIC. The entire trial was a waste of time.
OK, then a SIMPLE question. If you and I are required by the government to carry liability insurance, why not a government agency whose employees have occasion to joyride…er… transport cars entrusted to their care ? Or should I cancel my insurance and just say “shit happens” if I happen to stomp on the gas pedal…er…be distracted by driving a car way beyond my abilities ?
The court’s decision implies that sovereign immunity means they don’t need insurance. The car was “detained” not “entrusted”.
It leaves open the door to cases where government law enforcement agents destroy property intentionally. Does sovereign immunity still apply?
Sovereign immunity is a sound concept. Period.
That said, what can be done when those entrusted with recovered stolen property are unprofessional ass-hats? Evidently nothing.
Guns, badges, and the fed’s civil service union protection racket are the real issues here. As a NY resident, I think few local NY Police Departments could get away with wrecking an exotic car or any other $500K asset. At least not without those involved getting suspended.
Yet no discipline or consequence for the feds in this case. The Federal Nomenklatura are indeed special.
I do hope they don’t let ‘Agent Dietrich’ near the wheel of another car, at the least.