So would this be considered a CLM?

[MikeG]

So would this be considered a CLM? (Career Limiting Move)

US won't pay for Ferrari wrecked by FBI agent - Yahoo! News

I mean,he did invite the Assistant U.S. attorney along for the ride and both were in the car (Ferrari F50) so he did apparently have the blessing of the prosecutors officer (ProTip: invite prosecutor or supervisor along for these rides). Ferris Buehlers Day Off comes to mind. This apparently ended only seconds after it began. That would would have been a great conversation to record. "I thought these high end sports cars had a crash detector and preventer. You never hear about Ferrari F50 crashes in the news so I fgured they must detect crashes before they happen."

or maybe Fast Times at Ridgemont High
FBI SA to Assistant U.S. Attorney after crash and assessing damage: "Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it. Just be thankful for my fast reflexes that you only got a small cut on your head."

Not sure what logic the justice department is using to avoid responsibility. I recall some tort limits to liability if an item is a one-of-a-kind or extremely rare item that can't really be priced (e.g. a museum has a fire and the Mona Lisa is destroyed. I don't think they are on the hook for the Mona Lisa if the fire was accidental even if negligence is proved). I don't recall where I heard that, though. Also, if you crashed into this Ferrari I don't think the at-fault driver is on the hook for the ferrari's full price. Not sure what the limit is though.

Somehow I think RDS would have enjoyed responding to this single vehicle, non-injury accident and interviewing them. "Tell me again exactly how this $750,000 car fishtailed out of control while the FBI agent was driving under the watchful eye of the Assistant U.S. Attorney? I know I've asked this question before but I want to make sure I have a clear recording for all the guys back at the station. "

DETROIT – An FBI agent assigned to move a rare Ferrari wrecked it during a short drive in Kentucky, and its owner is now suing the U.S. Justice Department, which has refused to pay $750,000 for the car.

The Justice Department recently responded to the lawsuit by saying it's not liable for certain goods when they're in the hands of law enforcement. The government also has refused to release most documents related to the crash.

The Ferrari F50 was stolen in 2003 from a dealer in Rosemont, Pa., and discovered five years later. The FBI kept it in Lexington, Ky., as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

FBI agent Fred Kingston was to move the Ferrari from a garage in May 2009. Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson said Kingston invited him on a "short ride."

"Just a few seconds after we left the parking lot, we went around a curve and the rear of the car began sliding," Thompson said in an email released to Motors Insurance Co., the dealer's insurer.

"The agent tried to regain control but the car fishtailed and slid sideways up onto the curb. The vehicle came to rest against a row of bushes and a small tree," Thompson said.

He was not hurt, but Kingston needed a few stitches for a cut on his head.

Motors Insurance took ownership of the car after it paid the dealer for the theft. The company told the government that the 1995 Ferrari, one of only 50 in the U.S., suffered substantial damage in the Kentucky crash and is a "total loss."

"At heart, it is a race vehicle" and is not built like a typical car, truck or SUV, the insurer said in a claim for payment, partly explaining why it sought $750,000.

The Southfield, Mich.-based company filed a lawsuit in March after the Justice Department refused to pay. Motors Insurance has also filed a lawsuit to try to get records about the incident through the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The government has been secretive, saying most records are exempt. It only released Thompson's email.

"We don't really know what happened. We've asked for a lot of information," Motors Insurance attorney Richard Kraus said in an interview this week.

A judge has set a June 13 hearing in the case.

[retdetsgt]

I don't understand the logic the Justice Dept. is using in saying they aren't responsible. The dealer isn't a crook, in fact he's been a victim twice, once by the car thief and now by the FBI. In fact, the FBI loves to investigate locals for doing stuff like that.

That being said, $750K seems a bit steep even for a Ferrari.

Many years ago, a local FBI SA got drunk and drove his G-ride hitting a couple of other cars during the day downtown. He immediately got out of the car and announced who he was, I guess expecting us to kowtow to him. That didn't happen, he was arrested for it and resigned from the agency. Years later, I saw him in court....... On the bench as a judge......