Feds Off the Hook for Wrecked $750G Ferrari

[Tony_SS]

DETROIT – A federal judge in Detroit has dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wreck of a $750,000 Ferrari driven by an FBI agent.

Judge Avern Cohn said in his recent decision that the crash of the 1995 F50 sports car was "certainly unfortunate," but cited a law making the government immune to lawsuits when property is in custody of law enforcement.

Michigan-based Motors Insurance believes an agent and a federal prosecutor were out for a joyride in Lexington, Ky., in 2009 when the agent lost control of the Ferrari. The government has refused to pay for the car, which had been stolen and was being kept as part of an investigation.

The insurance company's attorney did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/10/11/feds-off-hook-for-wrecked-750g-ferrari/?test=latestnews

[JEFFTATE]

Well , that's just not right.
The agents were being negligent .

[kochevy67]

I bet if they were local law enforcement and not the feds and one of their prosecutors it would be a differnet story.

[1969CamaroRS]

That is just wrong, they certainly should be responsible for property that is in their custody, especially if gross negligence was involved such as a joy ride.

[Tony_SS]

I bet if they were local law enforcement and not the feds and one of their prosecutors it would be a differnet story.

You are probably right, but I wonder how they could "keep" the car after they recovered it? As part of an "investigation"?

The whole situation is wrong on many levels....

It will be interesting to see what happens. I wonder if the insurance company will cover it, or sue to recover costs from those responsible.

[John Wright]

A friend of mine bought a 63 Corvette and before he could pick it up, it was siezed along with a bunch of other cars. That was 5 years ago and the situation with the car hasn't been completely resolved yet. My buddy has had to insure the car all of this time because they said that they weren't responsible should anything happen to the car while it was in their lock-up. Stuff like that just doesn't seem right.

[GrabberGT]

What part of a "stolen vehicle investigation" requires the investigator to drive the car. Sounds like he "stole" it from lockup and was out driving it when he should not have been.

[ModernMuseum]

You've gotta be f'n kidding me!

[mc84_zz4]

Well ain't that convenient, that's an overreach of their authority, and the state should be responsible.
If the accident was due to improper use of the vehicle, they should settle with the Ins Co.
I am sure the Ins Co is all over this already.

[Tony_SS]

Well ain't that convenient, that's an overreach of their authority, and the state should be responsible.
If the accident was due to improper use of the vehicle, they should settle with the Ins Co.
I am sure the Ins Co is all over this already.

Nope, the ins company already tried to get the govt to be responsible.. But they should not be responsible as the agent was not insured while driving that car.


DETROIT (AP) — A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the wreck of a $750,000 Ferrari driven by an FBI agent, saying federal law grants immunity if property is being held by law enforcement.
The wreck of the rare 1995 F50 sports car was "certainly unfortunate," but the government cannot be sued in such a case, U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said.
Motors Insurance, based in Southfield, Mich., believes an FBI agent and a prosecutor were out for a joyride when the agent lost control of the Ferrari in a Lexington, Ky., industrial park in 2009. The government has refused to pay for the car.
The car was stolen in Rosemont, Pa., in 2003, eventually recovered and then kept by the FBI in Kentucky as part of an investigation. The government has declined to reveal much about the incident. But in an email that was released to the insurance company, Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson said he was invited for a "short ride" before the Ferrari was to be moved from an impound garage.
The driver, FBI agent Fred Kingston, lost control and the car hit bushes and a small tree, Thompson said.
The insurance company claimed the Ferrari was not actually in custody because the insurer had granted permission for the government to hold the car. The judge disagreed.
"The government's purpose in holding the vehicle was not to create a status of either consent or punitive coercion. ... Rather, the object was to control and preserve relevant evidence," Cohn said in an 11-page decision on Sept. 27.
The insurance company's attorney did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.




It doesn't say that the judge ordered the ins company to pay, but he sure granted immunity to 'the law'.

I'm sure the ins company will tell the so called 'owner' "tough beans" just like the judge did.

[Smock67]

Must be nice to have the ability to go joy riding in a Ferrari and when you wreck it, its like it never happened.

[andrewb70]

....

I'm sure the ins company will tell the so called 'owner' "tough beans" just like the judge did.

I would bet that the insurance company already paid the claim and is now attempting to recoup some of their losses, and rightfully so. It is amazing how "the law" in general is more focused on incarceration than protecting private property rights.

Andrew

[kochevy67]

It sure is funny how the FBI seems to suffer no reprecussions when they screw up, but they would have no problem hammering a local Police Officer for the same offense. Can you say 2 sets of rules here?

[Johnny Blaze]

Yeah, thats just, well, BS.

Guess some people really are,
http://youtu.be/T-jXe0x4YdM

[Johnny Blaze]

And just cause its funny,
http://youtu.be/2aaubVlhNK4

[LeighP]

Insurance probably paid out when it was originally stolen, now the car is "their" property, except whe nrecovered it wasn't stolen, but was damaged while being illegally used.
I'd say their next step will be to sue the driver as was certainly doing something he shouldn't have been doing....

[barno68]

The article does not say that the agent is not being held responsible, the insurance company just went after the deeper pockets first. If the agent was not on official business then whatever happened is on him.

I work for the Army and while our GSA vehicles are self insured by the government, if we damage them and are at fault we either pay out of pocket or our personal insurance company has to cover the damages. Judgement seems fair to me.

[Tony_SS]

the government immune to lawsuits when property is in custody of law enforcement.


Judgement seems fair to me.

What part of that is fair?

[parsonsj]

It might be worth getting a read of the judge's decision. It was 11 pages long, and we've gotten a sentence or two from it. Maybe there's more to the story than is being reported.

jp

[mikedc]

If the govt won't pay for damages then the driver & passenger should be doing hard time for car theft.