A.m.l., a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian, Amy Michelle Losie v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3176
___________________________
A.M.L., a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian, Amy Michelle Losie
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: October 19, 2022
Filed: March 1, 2023
____________
Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) vehicle allegedly ran over A.M.L.’s foot on July
18, 2018. A.M.L.’s mother sent a Claim for Damage, Injury or Death (Standard Form
95) to USPS in August 2018. A year later, A.M.L.’s attorney sent a demand letter
that set forth A.M.L.’s medical expenses. After USPS denied liability, A.M.L. (by
and through her parent) filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort

-- 1 of 6 --

Claims Act (FTCA). The government moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that
A.M.L. had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing suit. The
district court dismissed the suit, and A.M.L. appeals, arguing that her claims satisfied
the FTCA’s presentment requirement. We reverse and remand.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Magee v. United States, 9 F.4th 675, 680 (8th Cir. 2021). “We review
questions of statutory interpretation de novo, which requires us to examine the text
of the statute as a whole by considering its context, object, and policy.” Mader v.
United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Congress enacted the FTCA “to mitigate unjust consequences of sovereign
immunity” by “extend[ing] a remedy to those who had been without”—tort victims
injured by federal employees and officers. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135,
139–140 (1950). Congress amended the FTCA in 1966 to “facilitate settlement of
[FTCA] cases.” Mader, 654 F.3d at 798 (quoting Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d
221, 226 (8th Cir. 1977)) (alteration in original). Accordingly, a claimant must
present her claim to the appropriate federal agency before an action may be instituted
in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Because the value of the claim dictates who
may approve it and how it should be paid, id. at § 2672, a claimant must specify the
value of her claim so the federal agency can determine how to process it. Melo v.
United States, 505 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 1974). An action in court generally may
“not be instituted for any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented to the
federal agency,” but a claimant may seek a greater amount in court “where the
increased amount is based upon newly discovered evidence not reasonably
discoverable at the time of presenting the claim to the federal agency, or upon
allegation and proof of intervening facts, relating to the amount of the claim.” 28
U.S.C. § 2675(b).
-2-

-- 2 of 6 --

Regulations issued by the Attorney General clarify what is required for
presentment:
[A] claim shall be deemed to have been presented when a Federal
agency receives from a claimant, his duly authorized agent or legal
representative, [1] an executed Standard Form 95 or other written
notification of an incident, [2] accompanied by a claim for money
damages in a sum certain for injury to or loss of property, personal
injury, or death alleged to have occurred by reason of the incident; and
[3] the title or legal capacity of the person signing, and is accompanied
by evidence of his authority to present a claim on behalf of the claimant
as agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian, or other
representative.
28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a). See Mader, 654 F.3d at 804 n.9 (“[T]he Attorney General’s
regulation is merely a paraphrase of the inherent statutory elements of claim
presentation.”). Conformity with the presentment requirement is necessary for federal
courts to have subject matter jurisdiction over a subsequent action. Id. at 805.
In her Standard Form 95, A.M.L. claimed damages “in excess of $50,000.”
She revised this figure in a subsequent demand letter, stating, “we believe settlement
in the range of $250,000 to $275,000 is a very conservative estimate of her damages.”
The government argues that because these claims failed to provide a sum-certain
amount for her damages, A.M.L. neither met the presentment requirement nor
exhausted her administrative remedies.
The government relies on Mader v. United States, which requires as a
jurisdictional prerequisite that a claim be in “strict compliance” with the FTCA’s
requirements. See 654 F.3d at 805. Mader did not interpret “sum certain,” however,
nor did it offer a definition of what would constitute compliance with the sum-certain
requirement. The government asks that we adopt the position that a sum certain must
-3-

-- 3 of 6 --

allege a specific amount of damages and may not be simply expressed as a range.1
See Sum Certain, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “sum certain” as
“[a]ny amount that is fixed, settled, or exact.”). It asserts that only a claim for a
specific dollar value would satisfy the requirement’s purpose.
A.M.L. contends that the statement of a range would satisfy the statute’s
purposes. She argues that the upper end of the range informs the agency of those
thresholds which are determinative in processing the claim and which could also be
determinative of recovery limitations.
Several other circuits have concluded that a claim need not specify a single
dollar value to meet the sum certain requirement.2 We agree and hold that §§ 2672
and 2675(b) do not require that a claim set forth a single-dollar amount, but that it
1We do not accept the government’s argument that our precedent requires the
specification of a single dollar amount. In the cases the government relies upon, the
claimants did not specify any dollar amount for money damages, see, e.g., Melo v.
United States, 505 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1974), and we thus have not heretofore had
occasion to consider the question presented in this appeal.
2See Holloway v. United States, 845 F.3d 487, 490 (1st Cir. 2017) (failure to
specify sum certain not fatal if claim includes documentation that allows
determination of approximate total damages); Dalrymple v. United States, 460 F.3d
1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 2006) (same); Molinar v. United States, 515 F.2d 246, 249 (5th
Cir. 1975) (same); Ward v. United States, 1 F. App’x 511, 514 (7th Cir. 2001) (per
curiam) (“sum certain requirement need not imply a precise demand” (quotation
marks and alteration omitted)); see also Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047,
1049 (3rd Cir. 1971) (presentment requirement not met when claim failed to state
“specific sum” or “any information . . . from which a specific amount could be
computed”). But see Kokotis v. U.S. Postal Service, 223 F.3d 275, 279 (4th Cir.
2000) (sum certain requirement not met when claimant submitted periodic
documentation of medical bills even after statute of limitations had expired because
“[n]o exception exists for cases where the agency might have been able to estimate
the value of a claim”).
-4-

-- 4 of 6 --

must express the maximum value of the asserted claim. Accordingly, the expression
of a range complies with the statute’s requirements because it presents the maximum
value of the claim. Cf. Bradley v. U.S. by Veterans Admin., 951 F.2d 268, 271 (10th
Cir. 1991) (declining to find that claim satisfied sum certain requirement “[b]ecause
there [was] no ceiling on the amount”). A.M.L.’s claim of “$250,000 to $275,000”
thus presented a sum certain in compliance with the FTCA’s presentment
requirement.
The government also argues that A.M.L.’s claim did not present a sum certain
because, in addition to expressing her demand as a range, it described this range as
“a very conservative estimate.” Such language, whether it is designed to encourage
settlement or merely to acknowledge a claimant’s uncertainty regarding the actual
total damages, does not prevent the federal agency from evaluating the claim and
pursuing settlement. Furthermore, the statute permits a claimant to recover more in
court than what was sought from the agency if “the increased amount is based upon
newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the
claim to the federal agency, or upon allegation and proof of intervening facts.” 28
U.S.C. § 2675(b). A claimant will not be barred from recovery for using language
that suggests the actual damages are higher than the stated claim, although she is
limited to the amount of her demand in the absence of the presentment of newly
discovered evidence or of proof of intervening facts as permitted by the statute, in
light of our agreement with those courts that disregard such extraneous language.3
3See Rucker v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 798 F.2d 891, 892–93 (6th Cir. 1986)
(interpreting “in excess of $10,000–$450,000” to mean “greater than $10,000
specifically: $450,000” and finding that this presented a sum certain); Adams by
Adams v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 318, 321 (2d Cir. 1986)
(“[W]e do not believe an otherwise adequate request for a specific dollar amount
should be deemed fatally uncertain by reason of the claimant’s mere inclusion of the
words ‘in excess of.’”); Martinez v. United States, 728 F.2d 694, 697 (5th Cir. 1984)
(holding that claim for “in excess of $100,000” was in “reasonable compliance” with
requirement); Erxleben v. United States, 668 F.2d 268, 272–73 (7th Cir. 1981) (per
-5-

-- 5 of 6 --

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the views set forth in this opinion.
______________________________
curiam) (concluding that claim for “$149.42 presently” was valid because dollar
amount can fulfill purposes of statute and additional words should be treated as
surplusage). But see Bradley, 951 F.2d at 271 (finding that claim for “in excess of
$100,000.00” did not satisfy sum certain requirement).
-6-

-- 6 of 6 --