Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Richard L. Cox, Jr., United States Marshal for the Middle District of Florida v. Kurt's Marine Diesel of Tampa, Inc.
Citations: 785 F.2d 935; 1986 A.M.C. 2198; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23626Docket: 85-3768
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; April 1, 1986; Federal Appellate Court
Kurt's Marine Diesel of Tampa, Inc. (Defendant-Appellant) appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Richard L. Cox, Jr., U.S. Marshal for the Middle District of Florida (Plaintiff-Appellee). The case arose from a prior suit where the U.S. Marshal took custody of an arrested ship, and an error occurred in estimating custodial charges, specifically omitting insurance expenses of $1,144.26. This error remained undiscovered until after a settlement, which did not account for the insurance charge. In the current suit, the Marshal sought to recover the insurance expense, while Kurt's raised defenses of waiver, estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment for the Marshal, ruling that estoppel could not be applied against the government when acting in its sovereign capacity. The court distinguished between governmental functions, which serve the public interest, and proprietary functions, which are akin to private commercial activities. The Marshal's actions were deemed to be sovereign in nature since they supported the judicial system rather than serving a commercial purpose. Kurt's defense of negligent misrepresentation was challenged by the government, referencing the Federal Tort Claims Act, which limits claims against the U.S. regarding misrepresentation. However, it was determined that Kurt's claim arose from the same transaction as the Marshal's suit, and the relief sought by Kurt's aimed to defeat the government's claim. Thus, the misrepresentation defense was not barred. The Eleventh Circuit Court reversed the district court's ruling, allowing Kurt's defense of negligent misrepresentation to proceed.