The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On July 28, 1968, P's aircraft crashed on takeoff after its engines had ingested a large number of seagulls that had been roosting on the runway. The plane was covered by a $1,300,000 policy of aircraft hull insurance issued by a group of British insurance companies. P received $1,300,000 from the insurers pursuant to a typical loan receipt agreement, under which P was obligated to make repayment only out of any net recovery it might obtain from those liable for the crash. The agreement required that P stand ready to institute a suit in its own name for the purpose of effecting such a recovery. The insurers were to bear the expense and to assume direction and control of any such litigation. P submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a written claim in the amount of $1,763,643.64 making no reference to the insurers. On May 12, 1969, P filed a complaint against D alleging negligence on the part of the FAA air traffic controllers in not warning of the presence of seagulls on the runway and praying for $1,763,643.64 in damages. In part, D raised the defense that P was not the real party in interest. The District Court concluded that the loan receipt arrangement was a mere fiction that would not avoid subrogation. It held that the insurers, rather than P were the real parties in interest. Because the insurers had not filed an administrative claim within two years of the accident as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), the insurers could not be joined as plaintiffs. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.