Environmental Damage Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act: Examining Nanouk v. United States
Litigating the Discretionary Function Exception
Course Details
- smart_display Format
On-Demand
- signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level
- work Practice Area
Environmental
- event Date
Thursday, February 25, 2021
- schedule Time
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
- timer Program Length
90 minutes
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
This CLE course will advise environmental attorneys on the statutory analysis outlined in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Nanouk v. U.S. The panel will discuss the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the limitations of sovereign immunity, and the requirements to prove monetary damages.
Ms. Fellers focuses her practice on environmental law, with an emphasis on litigation relating to groundwater contamination, including cost recovery and mass toxic tort litigation. She has experience in litigation under a variety of state and federal environmental laws, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and litigation under the state counterparts, such as the California Hazardous Substance Account Act.
Mr. Minasian’s practice revolves around complex commercial litigation matters. Prior to joining Morgan Lewis, he worked for one of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Additionally, Mr. Minasian served as a judicial extern to Judge Kronstadt of the US District Court for the Central District of California.
Mr. Matsnev concentrates his practice on environmental litigation and regulatory compliance matters and is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.
The FTCA permits claims for monetary damages against the United States for injury or loss of property caused by the wrongful acts of federal employees when accompanied by a waiver of sovereign immunity. Environmental claims have often been barred due to the discretionary function exception, which preserves immunity for claims "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently looked at this exception in Nanouk v. U.S. and found that the exception does not apply to ordinary negligence. The court used a two-step analysis to determine whether the complaint included an actual decision or judgment and, if so, whether that decision was policy based.
Environmental counsel wishing to pursue damages claims should be well versed in this and other recent decisions related to the FTCA and the limitations of sovereign immunity when proceeding against the federal government.
Listen as our authoritative panel discusses the decision and analysis of Nanouk v. U.S. and how this decision can direct best practices in pursuing claims for environmental damages against the federal government.
- History of Nanouk v. U.S.
- Pursuing FTCA claims
- Sovereign immunity waivers and discretionary function exception
- Monetary damages
- Best practices
The panel will review these and other relevant topics:
- What is the history of the Nanouk v. U.S. case?
- How does the discretionary function exception impact sovereign immunity waivers?
- How can the FTCA be used to pursue environmental damages claims most effectively?
- What are the best practices that can be adapted from Nanouk v. U.S.?
Related Courses
Introduction to Environmental Litigation: Key Litigation Strategies, Regulatory Frameworks, and Common Challenges
Monday, April 28, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT