stating that the scope of a government officer’s “authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation,” that “everyone is charged with knowledge of the United States Statutes at Large,” and that misleading, unauthorized statements by a government officer do not create liability on the part of the United States
How later courts described this case
- stating that the scope of a government officer’s “authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation,” that “everyone is charged with knowledge of the United States Statutes at Large,” and that misleading, unauthorized statements by a government officer do not create liability on the part of the United States
- holding that ‘‘anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Govern- ment stays within the bounds of his authority . . . [a]nd this is so even though . . . the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his author- ity’’
- holding that a farmer who obtained federal insurance based on improper advice by an agent of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation that his entire crop qualified for insurance could not recover for the loss of his crop because the government could not be estopped from denying the claim by the agent’s erroneous statements
- finding that farmer could not recover under crop insurance on a lost crop even though the government agency misinformed the farmer that 8 DAWKINS v. WITT his re-seeded wheat crop was covered by government-provided insur- ance when, in fact, a statute forbade such coverage
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Liberty National Bank v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 670 (1985)
While the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, supra, 332 U.S. at 387-88, 68 S.Ct. at 5, 92 L.Ed. at 17, is factually distinguishable from the instant case, it is appropriate, at this juncture, to quote from Justice Jackson’s dissent, in which he stated that “[i]t is very well to say that those who deal with the Government should turn square corners.
Distinguished by Story v. Marsh, 574 F. Supp. 505 (1983)
Thus, Merrill is distinguishable on its facts.
Distinguished by Prestex, Inc. v. United States, 31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,508 (1983)
Corp. v. Merrill, supra, is inapplicable in this case, since Lipovac’s promise was essentially a promise not to penalize plaintiff.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Jackson,
dissenting.
I would affirm the decision of the court below. If crop insurance contracts made by agencies of the United States Government are to be judged by the law of the State in which they are written, I find no error in the court below. *387 If, however, we are to hold them subject only to federal law and to declare what that law is, I can see no reason why we should not adopt a rule which recognizes the practicalities of the business.
It was early discovered that fair dealing in the insurance business required that the entire contract between the policyholder and the insurance company be embodied in the writings which passed between the parties, namely, the written application, if any, and the policy issued. It may be well enough to make some types of contracts with the Government subject to long and involved regulations published in the Federal Register. To my mind, it is an absurdity to hold that every farmer who insures his crops knows what the Federal Register contains or even knows that there is such a publication. If he were to peruse this voluminous and dull publication as it is issued from time to time in order to make sure whether anything has been promulgated that affects his rights, he would never need crop insurance, for he would never get time to plant any crops. Nor am I convinced that a reading of technically-worded regulations would enlighten him much in any event.
In this case, the Government entered a field which required the issuance of large numbers of insurance policies to people engaged in agriculture. It could not expect them to be lawyers, except in rare instances, and one should not be expected to have to employ a lawyer to see whether his own Government is issuing him a policy which in case of loss would turn out to be no policy at all. There was no fraud or concealment, and those who represented the Government in taking on the risk apparently no more suspected the existence of a hidden regulation that would render the contract void than did the policyholder. It is very well to say that those who deal with the Government should turn square corners. But *388 there is no reason why the square corners should constitute a one-way street.
The Government asks us to lift its policies out of the control of the States and to find or fashion a federal rule to govern them. I should respond to that request by laying down a federal rule that would hold these agencies to the same fundamental principles of fair dealing that have been found essential in progressive states to prevent insurance from being an investment in disappointment.
Mr. Justice Douglas joins in this opinion.