Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review
BLOGS & LEGAL INSIGHTS:
BUSINESS LAW
Hero-Split-Right
CONSUMER LAW

Hero-Split-Left

 

WEBINARS

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

VIDEO LIBRARY

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

2 min read

Untimely Filing: Broussard's Legal Tangle with the United States

red alarm clock above letter blocks spelling

In Broussard v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the timeliness of a claim filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The case arose after Nathaniel Broussard’s alleged collision with a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) vehicle, leading to disputes over procedural timelines and the applicability of equitable tolling.

Case Background

On November 14, 2019, Broussard reported a collision with a USPS vehicle in Sulphur, Louisiana. He filed a claim on December 2, 2019, using Standard Form 95 (SF-95), requesting $15,169.58 for property damage to his truck but indicating no personal injuries at that time. The USPS denied his claim on March 26, 2020, citing his insurance coverage with State Farm. The denial letter advised Broussard of his rights to either seek reconsideration or file a lawsuit within six months.

The Second Claim

Eight months later, on December 1, 2020, Broussard, now represented by legal counsel, submitted a new SF-95, revising his claim to include personal injury damages of $2 million, resulting from the same incident. The USPS rejected this second claim on February 2, 2021, noting that Broussard was not entitled to file multiple claims for the same accident. Furthermore, USPS indicated that the six-month period to file suit had expired in September 2020, making any subsequent claims untimely.

District Court Proceedings

On February 9, 2021, Broussard initiated a lawsuit against the United States, seeking damages for his injuries from the November 2019 incident. The government filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the claim was time-barred. Broussard argued that the February 2021 denial of his second SF-95 reset the limitations period, giving him a new six-month timeframe to file his suit.

The district court ruled against Broussard, determining that the second SF-95 did not restart the limitations clock and found no basis for equitable tolling. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, deeming Broussard’s claim permanently barred.

Appeal and Judgment

On appeal, Broussard argued that his initial SF-95 only addressed property damage and did not constitute a valid personal injury claim, thereby not triggering the FTCA’s limitations period. He further contended that equitable tolling should apply, given the circumstances.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed, concluding that the initial SF-95 encompassed all claims arising from the November 2019 incident. It emphasized that the FTCA’s claim-filing process is designed to provide a “one-bite-at-the-apple” approach, where a claimant cannot reinitiate the limitations period by filing a second, duplicative claim. Additionally, the court held that equitable tolling was not warranted, as Broussard had not faced any extraordinary barriers to timely filing.

Final Ruling

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, ruling that Broussard’s claim was time-barred and that equitable tolling did not apply.