Monday, October 17, 2011

I's misable, right?*

I've been doing battle with some sort of cold or flu thing for the last few days. Last night I tried going to bed early, but that only meant that my eyes flew open at 0300, and here I sit, blowig by doze, thoroughly miserable in the long quiet hours around oh-dark-thirty.

Anyhow, let's see what's shakin' on the intertubes....


Hey, remember Special Agent Bueller, the FBI Agent who had to move a stolen Ferrari F50 from one parking space to another and invited a local federal prosecutor to ride along for this mundane chore and then somehow and completely by accident wadded up the $750,000 car, totalling it?

Well, via Popehat I learn that a judge has just told the insurance company that these are, indeed, tough bananas, but the government doesn't have to pay them squat. Sorry about your Ferrari, dude; jack up the rates on your other customers to cover the writeoff. Next case.

Apparently being a Fed means never having to say you're sorry.

*(Reference for post title...)


the pawnbroker said...

No sorries necessary, as by definition being a FIB'er means you lie your ass off.

And who ya gonna believe, judge, the Fed's Finest or that greedy and rich insurance company? They're essentially laundering drug money over there!

RedeemedBoyd said...

I choked when I saw that. It should absolutely come out of the pocket of the individual behind the wheel when it was wrecked.

perlhaqr said...

You're miscible? In what?


I hope you feel better soon.

staghounds said...

An actual reading of the facts erodes my sympathy with Motors Insurance- in this case the owner, not the insuror, of the Ferrari.

First, they gave the FBI permission to store the car.

I would not let someone I could not sue hold onto my car.

Second, it appears (though irrelevant) that the car was being returned to Motors when it was wrecked.

If I were going to get my car back from the unsuable storer, I don't believe I would give him or his agent permission to drive it, I'd send my own driver.

Not a matter of "Who will you believe" at all, the facts are agreed.

Looks like MIC was trying to have the best of both worlds.

Read the actual case:

Anonymous said...

I just read "the actual case," and it makes it even worse.

You can't sue the government if they acted within the scope of their duties, and you can't sue the government if they acted outside the scope of their duties.

It's despicable, tyrannical behavior, and your "erosion of sympathy" for the specific case does nothing to address the overall issue: the worst cop over the best citizen, in every case, forever.

staghounds said...

The fact is that the law provides that the US cant be sued for goods it detains. After the US recovered the car, MIC had the opportunity to get it back.

Knowing that, MIC said, "NO, US, you hold onto my car for me".

Arguably, US then broke the car.

As to the can/can't aspect, that's basic agency law. You can't sue UPS for its agents acts outside the scope of the agency, either. No special protection for government there.

If the FBI agent was doing something the US told him wasn't part of his job, then the US ought not to be responsible.

If the FBI agent was returning the car to MIC, at MIC's request, then MIC again has little to complain about. If the FBI man had been hit and injured while returning the car, do you think MIC would be demanding to pay the hospital bills?

I just have a hard time feeling sorry for the plaintiff here. The car was an actuarial windfall for them, they wrote the $600,000+ off five years ago when they paid the claim. They entrusted their property to a bad bailee.

And for my money, there ought not to be sovereign immunity. Unfortunately we as a republic made this exception to the FTCA , we can change it.

"the government" is us.

Anonymous said...

I find it exceedingly strange that the car's owner is said to have "given permission" for law enforcement to keep possession of the car.

The general course of action seems to be to seize such assets as "evidence", rather than ask the rightful owners if they can hold onto such things pretty please.

Anonymous said...

"...the facts are agreed."

That Bueller jumped in for a joyride with his homey and heeled when he shoulda toed? Right, no lies there.

There's no "erosion of sympathy" for the ins. co. for me, I never had any to start with...but unless they were vying for the top spot in the Ironic Awards, they were both owner and insuror; let 'em sue their damnselves.

But fuck a bunch of immunity; that twit should at least lose his job.

staghounds said...

Absolutely he should lose his job, with his name named.

And MIC, although an insurance company, was not acting as such in this case. There was no policy of insurance, MIC simply owned the car.

The court didn't need to reach the "joyride" issue, which makes some of the prejudice-inspired comments to this post so funny. No FBI agent's word was accepted, no citizen's was rejected.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't KY require auto insurance? Let me guess the feb is immune to that requirement.

Tam said...

Anon 6:03,

"Doesn't KY require auto insurance?"

I'm pretty sure that they'll waive that requirement in cases where the vehicle's actually, you know, titled to an insurance company.

the pawnbroker said...

(anon 3:01 was me; hit the wrong button)

"...although an insurance company...There was no policy of insurance..."

Ironic Award it is then...and considering everything, they're a strong contender for the Moronic Cup too. It'd be hilariouser, except as Tam says we'll all chip in for that wasted Ferrari.

"...the prejudice-inspired comments to this post..."

And what of the inspiration for the post itself there, Kreskin?

There are some very bright people who come to believe that what is allowed to happen in court is somehow related to real-life truth and justice. They are mistaken. Some of them are even culpable.

Anonymous said...

I would argue that the vehicle wasn't operated with the consent of the owner in this case. My greater concern is if agent Ernie Irvan had come to rest in the B-pillar of someones grocery getter who is a new one, who is footing the bill for the ride in the ambulance.

staghounds said...

Well MIC admits it, so whether you find it strange or not it happened.

I can see it making sense. Its not like the Ferrarri market is strong right now, let the taxpayers store the car for a while.

And my experience is that stolen cars are immediately returned to their owners where possible. YMMV, but the police in my county do it every day.

And every day I tell victims and police officer that reality and court are like your real life and All My Children.