28 C.F.R. § 14.3
Administrative claim; who may file
(a) A claim for injury to or loss of property may be presented by the owner of the property, his duly authorized agent or legal representative.
(b) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the injured person, his duly authorized agent, or legal representative.
(c) A claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the decendent's estate, or by any other person legally entitled to assert such a claim in accordance with applicable State law.
(d) A claim for loss wholly compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the insurer. A claim for loss partially compensated by an insurer with the rights of a subrogee may be presented by the parties individually as their respective interests appear, or jointly.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Est. of Eleusipa Van Emburgh v. United States, 95 F.4th 795 (4th Cir. 2024).
Est. of Eleusipa Van Emburgh v. United States, 95 F.4th 795 (4th Cir. 2024). “” 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 (c). Second are the Navy-specific regulations, which supplement the Attorney General’s regulations.”
Pleasant v. United States Ex Rel. Overton Brooks Vets. Admin. Hosp., 764 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014). “See 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 . Section 14.3(c) provides that “[a] claim based on death may be presented by the executor or administrator of the 8 Case: 12-31268 Document: 00512738823 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 No.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by William Sheppard, Ins. Comm'r v. Nat'l Ass'n of Flood Insurers, an Unincorporated Ass'n, 520 F.2d 11 (3rd Cir. 1975). “2 ; (2) from the owner of the property or the owner’s duly authorized agent or legal representative, 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 (a); 24 C.F.R. § 17.3 (a); (3) and set forth the amount claimed in sum certain with respect to each item of property, 28 C.”
Lillian Knapp, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Julius J. Knapp, Deceased v. United States, 844 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1988). “The VA returned this form to counsel the following day accompanied by a letter which stated that the claim had not been submitted by a legal representative of the estate as required by 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 . Counsel for Mrs. Knapp redelivered the form to the agency on May 14, 1984,…”
Miles v. Bell, 621 F. Supp. 51 (D. Conn. 1985). “Grzegorek asked plaintiffs’ attorneys to provide the Bureau of Prisons with the information required under 28 C.F.R. §§ 14.3 and 14.4 regarding their authorization to represent the plaintiff class and seeking specific information concerning the alleged personal injuries…”
Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011). “The precision of that regulation stands in stark contrast with the generic language in sections 2675, 2672, or 1346 of the FTCA, which make no mention of the evidence of authority.”
Forest v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 171 (D. Mont. 1982). “Specifically, the United States contends that the plaintiffs have failed to comply with 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 (e), infra, in that no proof of either Mrs.”
Carter v. United States, 667 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (D. Kan. 2009). “28 C.F.R. § 14.3 (a). 17 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a).”
Cassondra King v. United States, 3 F.4th 996 (8th Cir. 2021). “” 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 (c). Under the last- antecedent rule, “a limiting clause or phrase .”
Robert L. Preston v. United States, 596 F.2d 232 (7th Cir. 1979). “§ 2680 (h)) was applicable, and (5) the plaintiffs did not have title to the property as required by the applicable regulation contained in 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 . 4 Finally, according to the motion to dismiss, the district court had no jurisdiction over the claims of 43 plaintiffs…”
Jesse J. Avila, Guardian Ad Litem of Daniel Cardona v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 731 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1984). “The government cites regulations appearing at 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 reading: (b) A claim for personal injury may be presented by the injured person, his duly authorized agent or legal representative.”
Warren v. United States Dep't of the Interior Bureau of Land Mgmt., 724 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1984). “They allege that her death was the proximate result of the government’s failure to properly supervise land under its control.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(a) — 2 cases
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Flood Insurers, 378 F. Supp. 1339 (M.D. Penn. 1974).
Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 63 F.R.D. 69 (N.D. Ill. 1974).
— 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(b) — 1 case
Locke v. United States, 351 F. Supp. 185 (D. Haw. 1972).
— 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(b)(c) — 1 case
Pringle v. United States, 419 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1976).
— 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(c) — 3 cases
Pringle v. United States, 419 F. Supp. 289 (D.S.C. 1976).
Locke v. United States, 351 F. Supp. 185 (D. Haw. 1972).
Dawson Ex Rel. Est. of Dawson v. United States, 333 F. Supp. 2d 488 (D.S.C. 2004).
— 28 C.F.R. § 14.3(e) — 10 cases
Lunsford v. United States, 418 F. Supp. 1045 (D.S.D. 1976).
Hunter v. United States, 417 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Cal. 1976).
Lillian Knapp, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Julius J. Knapp, Deceased v. United States, 844 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1988). “The VA returned this form to counsel the following day accompanied by a letter which stated that the claim had not been submitted by a legal representative of the estate as required by 28 C.F.R. § 14.3 . Counsel for Mrs. Knapp redelivered the form to the agency on May 14, 1984,…”
Moody v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Tenn. 1984).
Champagne v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 488 (E.D. La. 1983).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.