- 14 -
she may have had against her insurance provider, for
uninsured or under-insured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage”.
Thus, respondent argues, petitioner’s “personal injury
tort claims had long since expired by operation of law
prior to 1999 when the Campbell class action case was
filed.” Respondent cites Greer v. United States, 207 F.3d
322, 327 (6th Cir. 2000), and Dickerson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-53, for the proposition that a taxpayer’s
tort claim cannot be taken into account under section
104(a)(2) unless “the claim existed at the time of the
settlement”. Since petitioner had no extant tort claim
when Campbell v. State Farm was filed, respondent argues,
no part of the settlement payment is excludable under
section 104(a)(2).
Respondent’s argument does not answer the obvious
question why the payor, State Farm, gave $30,199 to
petitioner to settle contract and/or tort claims that were
time barred under the applicable statutes of limitations.
Respondent’s memorandum touches on this question when
it states: “the fact that * * * [petitioner] received
partial payment from the insurer between the period
July 24, 1982 and July 20, 1988 somehow entitled her to
participate as a class member in Campbell v. State Farm”.
(Emphasis supplied.) This unanswered question goes to the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011