- 14 -
Although the existence of tort or tort type claims is
necessary, that alone is not sufficient to enable the settlement
proceeds to come within the ambit of section 104(a)(2); a showing
that the $45,000 settlement was “on account of personal injury or
sickness” is also required. See Commissioner v. Schleier, supra.
Accordingly, we next address whether Mr. Norton recovered damages
on account of traditional personal injury claims such as physical
pain and suffering and/or emotional distress. See id. at 327.
In count one of the Harman complaint, Mr. Norton alleged the
following: “As a result of this dispossession, the plaintiff was
deprived of one hundred fifty (150) tons of herring * * * [in
addition] [he] also suffered additional expenses and inconvenience
for the use of his crew to release the catch.” Counts two, three,
and four alleged similar damages. In addition, the only damage
counts five and six alleged related to the loss of valuable fishing
“points”. Moreover, no physical, mental, or emotional injuries
were pleaded in the complaint. Accordingly, we conclude that the
injury giving rise to the Harman lawsuit was economic in nature.
The damages Mr. Norton sought were for the loss of anticipated
profits from his fishing activities. Indeed, Mr. Norton’s own
attorney testified that Mr. Norton’s primary objective in bringing
the lawsuit was to protect his commercial fishing business. There
is no evidence indicating that the settlement proceeds were
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011