source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Blackmun

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. MOTTAZ
    No. 85-546.
    Argued April 22, 1986
    Decided June 11, 1986

      Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Edwin S. Kneedler argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Habicht, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, and David C. Shilton.

      Derek Amerman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Leonard A. Zolna, Jr

         John C. Christie, Jr., J. William Hayton, Stephen J. Landes, and Lucinda 0. McConathy filed a brief for The American Land Title Association as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Navajo Tribe of Indians by Paul E. Frye; and for Katherine Nichols et al. by Kim Jerome Gottschalk.

   Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether respondent’s suit against the United States is time barred. In 1954, the Government sold respondent’s interests in three Indian allotments to the United States Forest Service for inclusion in the Chippewa National Forest in Minnesota. Respondent claims that the sale was void. We hold that respondent’s suit is an action “to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest,” within the meaning of the Quiet Title Act of 1972, 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a), and therefore is barred by that Act’s 12-year period of limitations. See 28 U. S. C. §2409a(f).

I

In 1905, pursuant to the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended, 25 U. S. C. §331 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II), and the Nelson Act of 1889, 25 Stat. 642, three Chippewa Indian ancestors of respondent Florence Blacketter Mottaz each received an 80-acre allotment on the Leech Lake Reservation in Cass County, Minn. Title to each of these allotments was held in trust by the United States. Respondent eventually inherited a one-fifth interest in one of the allotments and a one-thirtieth interest in each of the other two.

In the early 1950’s, some holders of fractional interests in Leech Lake allotments petitioned the Department of the Interior to permit them to sell their lands. On April 30, 1953, the Department’s Office of Indian Affairs sent respondent two forms, captioned “Consent to Sale of Inherited Lands.” App. 42, 43. Accompanying the forms was a letter which read in part:

“As stated before, some of the owners have requested the sale of this land. Both land and timber, if any, have been appraised; and as soon as we get the consent to sell, an effort will be made to obtain a buyer by advertising for sale bids. This land will not be sold unless the high bid is equal to, or more than, the appraised value. If no reply is received from you within ten (10) days, it will be assumed that you have no objection to the sale.” Id., at 15.

The consent forms indicated that one of the allotments was appraised at $420.50 and the other at $605.75. Respondent neither replied to the letter nor returned the consent forms. In 1954, despite the lack of express consent from every person who held an interest in any of the three allotments, the Government sold them to the United States Forest Service.

Respondent visited the regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in May 1967 and expressed an interest in selling her inherited Indian lands. Later that month, the realty officer sent her a letter informing her of her allotment interests. The letter did not mention the Leech Lake allotments. Id., at 17. Respondent in 1981 again requested a list of her interests. In its reply, the Bureau set forth the allotments currently held in trust for her and, in addition, noted that she once had held interests in the Leech Lake allotments which had been sold by the Secretary as part of the so-called “Secretarial Transfer” program. Id., at 44-45.

II

In 1981, respondent filed suit against the United States in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. She claimed jurisdiction under 25 U. S. C. § 345, 28 U. S. C. §§1331, 1346, 1353, and 2415, and the Fifth Amendment. App. 7. She alleged that the sales of her three Leech Lake allotments “made without [her] consent or permission . . . were, therefore, illegal sales and transfers and are void.” Id., at 8. In addition, respondent raised four other claims regarding the sale: that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty in selling lands held in trust for her without first obtaining her consent; that the United States had acted negligently in selling her lands; that she had been deprived of property without due process; and that her property had been taken for public use without just compensation. Id., at 10. Respondent also sought to represent both a nationwide and a Minnesota-based class of similarly situated Indian claimants. Id., at 8-9.

Respondent originally sought either “[d]amages in a monetary sum equal to the current fair market value of each parcel illegally transferred” or “rescission of the illegal sale or transfer and the vesting of title of each individual parcel in the names of the appropriate descendants, heirs and assigns.” Id., at 10. After a preliminary hearing, she voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, her claim requesting rescission. Id., at 12.

The District Court ruled that respondent’s claims were barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2401(a), the general statute of limitations governing actions against the United States. That section provides, in pertinent part, that “every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.” The court held that respondent’s cause of action first accrued when she learned of the sale of the lands. Since respondent’s deposition “clearly reveal[ed] that she had knowledge of the sale in 1954,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a, her suit, filed 27 years after the sale, was barred.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 753 F. 2d 71 (CA8 1985). While it recognized that respondent’s complaint was somewhat opaque, it rejected the Government’s claim that respondent was seeking, not simply to establish title to the allotments, but also to obtain damages for alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty: the complaint “must be read as raising the one essential claim that her land was sold without her consent, that she did not receive payment for her land, and that accordingly the sale was void and she retains title to the land.” Id., at 75. The claim for damages equal to the current fair market value of the land “must be construed as equivalent to a claim for return of the land itself.” Ibid.

The Court of Appeals ruled that such a claim could not be time barred. This Court in Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U. S. 129 (1922), had held that the sale of an allotment to a Government agent in violation of federal law is “ ‘void and confers no right upon the wrongdoer,’” id., at 138, quoting Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U. S. 85, 94 (1912), and had refused to apply principles of laches to bar the Indians’ claim against Ewert. Although Ewert v. Bluejacket did not consider whether federal statutes of limitations apply to land claims brought by Indian allottees, the Court of Appeals found that § 2401(a) “does not bar claims of title to allotments because Ewert is based on the principle that, if the underlying sale of land is void, the concept that a cause of action ‘accrues’ at some point is inapplicable because the allottee simply retains title all along.” 753 F. 2d, at 74.

Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the statute of limitations question depended on the resolution of several preliminary issues. It therefore remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the Secretary lacked the authority in 1954 to sell respondent’s lands without her consent, and, if such a sale would have been unauthorized, whether respondent either had consented or had actually received payment following the sale, in which case her consent could be inferred. If respondent proved on remand that the sale was illegal, then, “[i]n light of the land’s inclusion within the Chippewa National Forest and the thirty years which have passed since the sale, . . . she may force the government to pay her the fair market value of the land rather than to simply return the land itself.” Id., at 75.

The Government petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc. In its petition, the Government claimed, apparently for the first time, that respondent’s suit to recover land currently held by the United States was barred, not by the general 6-year statute of limitations in § 2401(a), but rather by the 12-year limitations period established by the Quiet Title Act. 2 Record 16. In addition, the Government argued that the Court of Appeals’ holding that respondent could compel the United States to pay her the fair market value of her property involved relief “of the type typically provided by the Tucker Act,” ibid., but a Tucker Act claim would clearly be barred by the 6-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals denied the Government’s petition. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. Because of the importance of the issue, we granted certiorari to consider whether respondent’s claim was barred under either § 2401(a) or §2409a(f), the limitations provision governing Quiet Title Act claims. 474 U. S. 994 (1985).

Ill

When the United States consents to be sued, the terms of its waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of the court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586 (1941). In particular, “[w]hen waiver legislation contains a statute of limitations, the limitations provision constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity.” Block v. North Dakota, 461 U. S. 273, 287 (1983). Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals discussed the precise source of its jurisdiction, and the parties at various times before this Court have identified the jurisdictional basis of respondent’s suit as the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(f) and 2409a; the Allotment Acts, 25 U. S. C. §345 and 28 U. S. C. § 1353; and the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(2). Thus, we must decide which, if any, of these statutes conferred jurisdiction on the District Court and the Court of Appeals, and then determine whether respondent’s suit was brought within the relevant limitations period.

A

In Block v. North Dakota, 461 U. S., at 286, this Court held that “Congress intended the QTA to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Here, respondent contests the United States’ claim that it acquired title to the allotments in 1954. We think that respondent’s suit falls within the scope of the Quiet Title Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2409a(a), which governs “civil action[s] ... to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest.” Respondent’s description of her claim clearly brings it within the Act’s scope:

“At no time in this proceeding did respondent drop her claim for title. To the contrary, the claim for title is the essence and bottom line of respondent’s case. Her position is simply that the land remains in the name of Mottaz and the other heirs of the property despite what some pieces of paper executed by petitioner without her consent and without a court hearing purport to do.” Brief for Respondent 3.

See also 753 F. 2d, at 74, 75. The relief respondent seeks confirms this characterization of her suit. Respondent does not seek recovery of her share of the proceeds realized by the United States from the 1954 sale but allegedly never distributed. A claim for monetary damages in that amount would involve a concession that title had passed to the United States Forest Service in 1954 and that the sole issue was whether respondent was fairly compensated for the taking of her interests in the allotments. Rather, respondent demands damages in the amount of the current fair market value of her interests. What respondent seeks is a declaration that she alone possesses valid title to her interests in the allotments and that the title asserted by the United States is defective, and an order requiring the United States to pay her the value of her interest today in order properly to transfer title.

Nonetheless, respondent claims that her suit is not governed by the Quiet Title Act because, by its own terms, that Act “does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands,” § 2409a(a), such as the lands in which she asserts an interest. Respondent misconstrues this exclusion, which operates solely to retain the United States’ immunity from suit by third parties challenging the United States’ title to land held in trust for Indians. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 92-575, p. 6 (1971); H. R. Rep. No. 92-1559, p. 13 (1972); Dispute of Titles on Public Lands, Hearing on S. 216, S. 579, and S. 721 before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 19 (1971). Thus, when the United States claims an interest in real property based on that property’s status as trust or restricted Indian lands, the Quiet Title Act does not waive the Government’s immunity. Here, however, the United States claims an interest in the Leech Lake lands, not on behalf of Indian beneficiaries of a trust, but rather on behalf of the United States Forest Service and the Chippewa National Forest. Thus, the Act provides the United States’ consent to suit concerning its claim to these lands, provided, of course, that the plaintiff challenging the Government’s title meets the conditions attached to the United States’ waiver of immunity.

The limitations period is a central condition of the consent given by the Act. See, e. g., Block, 461 U. S., at 283-285; H. R. Rep. No. 92-1559, supra, at 5, 7-8. The Act provides:

“Any civil action under this section shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it is accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(f).

The District Court expressly found that respondent knew of the sale in 1954. Moreover, the list of interests provided to respondent by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1967 did not include any of the three Leech Lake allotments. Thus, by 1967, at the very latest, respondent was on notice that the Government did not recognize her title to the allotments. Whether respondent actually knew that the allotments had been included within the Chippewa National Forest and thus were claimed by the United States, her undisputed knowledge that the Government no longer recognized her as having a valid claim to the allotments satisfies the “should have known” prong of § 2409a(f)’s accrual test. Her claim is therefore barred.

B

Respondent, however, seeks to avoid the carefully crafted limitations of the Quiet Title Act by characterizing her suit as a claim for an allotment under the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 331 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II). That Act grants jurisdiction to the district courts over suits “involving the right ... to any allotment.” 25 U. S. C. §345. Respondent claims that the general 6-year statute of limitations governing all civil actions against the Government, 28 U. S. C. § 2401(a), does not apply to cases brought under the General Allotment Act, and that her claim therefore cannot be time barred. We need not reach the question whether § 2401(a) applies to claims brought under § 345 of the General Allotment Act, and, if it does, when a cause of action begins to run, since we conclude that respondent cannot use §345 for a quiet title action against the Government.

Section 345 grants federal district courts jurisdiction over two types of cases: (i) proceedings “involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty,” and (ii) proceedings “in relation to” the claimed right of a person of Indian descent to land that was once allotted. Section 345 thus contemplates two types of suits involving allotments: suits seeking the issuance of an allotment, see, e. g., Arenas v. United States, 322 U. S. 419 (1944), and suits involving “‘the interests and rights of the Indian in his allotment or patent after he has acquired it,’” Scholder v. United States, 428 F. 2d 1123, 1129 (CA9), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 942 (1970), quoting United States v. Pierce, 235 F. 2d 885, 889 (CA9 1956).

The structure of §345 strongly suggests, however, that § 345 itself waives the Government’s immunity only with respect to the former class of cases: those seeking an original allotment. In those suits, §345 provides that “the parties thereto shall be the claimant as plaintiff and the United States as party defendant” (emphasis added), while, as to the latter class of cases, no mention of the United States’ participation is made. Accordingly, in Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S. 128 (1972), this Court held that, to the extent that § 345 involves a waiver of federal immunity, as opposed to a grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to the district courts, that section “authorizes, and provides governmental consent for, only actions for allotments.” 406 U. S., at 142 (emphasis added). See also Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 473 (1906) (sovereign immunity precludes suit against United States regarding disposition of Indian lands).

That federal courts may have general subject-matter jurisdiction over claims to quiet title to allotments brought by Indians, see n. 9, supra, does not therefore mean that the United States has waived its immunity in cases where an Indian challenges the United States’ claim of title in its own right. As the Court already has noted, Congress intended the Quiet Title Act “to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Block, 461 U. S., at 286. In Block, the State of North Dakota sued the federal officers responsible for supervising a riverbed within the State which both the State and the Federal Government claimed to own and sought an injunction barring them from exercising privileges of ownership over the bed. The Court held that such an “officer’s suit” was precluded since it would circumvent the “carefully crafted provisions of the QTA deemed necessary for the protection of the national public interest.” Id., at 284-285. To permit challenges to the Government’s claim of title to be brought under other jurisdictional provisions might mean that “the QTA’s 12-year statute of limitations, the one point on which the Executive Branch was most insistent, could be avoided, and, contrary to the wish of Congress, an unlimited number of suits involving stale claims might be instituted.” Id., at 285. Moreover, to permit officer’s suits might thwart Congress’ determination that the Government be given the option of paying just compensation and thereby keeping land even after an adverse judgment, see § 2409a(b), in order to avoid disruption of ongoing federal activities involving the disputed property. 461 U. S., at 285.

To permit suits against the United States under the General Allotment Act poses similar dangers. Not only could it permit plaintiffs to avoid the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year statute of limitations, but it could also seriously disrupt ongoing federal programs. The remedial clause of the General Allotment Act provides that a judgment in favor of an Indian claimant “shall have the same effect... as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by [the Secretary of the Interior].” 25 U. S. C. § 345. Thus, if plaintiffs were permitted to sue under the General Allotment Act, they would be entitled to actual possession of the challenged property. This would pose precisely the threat to ongoing federal activities on the property that the Quiet Title Act was intended to avoid. That the plaintiff in this case claims the right to elect a remedy that would not require the Government to relinquish its possession of the disputed lands is irrelevant: the Quiet Title Act expressly gives that choice to the Government, not the claimant. 28 U. S. C. §2409a(b). In light of Congress’ purposes in enacting the Quiet Title Act, we cannot conclude that Congress intended to permit persons in respondent’s position to avoid that Act’s strictures.

C

At oral argument, respondent claimed that her case is based solely on the General Allotment Act. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 23, 26. Nevertheless, at various times during this litigation, both parties have identified the Tucker Act as providing a source of federal jurisdiction over respondent’s claims. Although respondent and the Government apparently agree that a suit based on the Tucker Act would be barred by the general 6-year statute of limitations, 28 U. S. C. § 2401(a), we must address the possibility that the District Court’s jurisdiction rested on the Tucker Act because, if it did, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit may have lacked jurisdiction over respondent’s appeal.

Prior to the passage of the Quiet Title Act, adverse claimants had resorted to the Tucker Act to circumvent the Government’s immunity from quiet title suits. Rather than seeking a declaration that they owned the property at issue, such claimants would concede that the Government possessed title and then would seek compensation for the Government’s having taken the property from them. See Block, 461 U. S., at 280-281; H. R. Rep. No. 92-1559, at 9, 12. In light of the Quiet Title Act’s explicit statement that § 2409a(a) does not “apply to or affect actions which may be or could have been brought under sections 1346 . . . [or] 1491 ... of this title,” we cannot conclude that Tucker Act-based suits, like the officer’s suit at issue in Block, are clearly precluded by the passage of the Quiet Title Act.

But regardless of whether other claimants may invoke the district courts’ Tucker Act jurisdiction to hear their claims, it is clear that respondent has not brought a case falling within the scope of the Tucker Act. In Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U. S. 479, 480 (1915), Justice Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, stated that “the plaintiff is absolute master of what jurisdiction he will appeal to,” and noted that “[jjurisdiction generally depends upon the case made and relief demanded by the plaintiff.” Thus, since the “essential features,” id., at 481, of Healy’s case involved allegations of patent infringement and a request for the relief characteristically provided by patent law, Healy could invoke federal patent law jurisdiction despite the fact that the measure of damages was fixed by contract.

Respondent now invokes federal jurisdiction only under the General Allocation Act and its jurisdictional counterpart. Moreover, the case she has made, and the relief she seeks, do not fit within the scope of the Tucker Act. A Tucker Act-based lands suit would seek damages equal to just compensation for an already completed taking of the claimant’s land. See, e. g., Block, 461 U. S., at 280-281; H. R. Rep. No. 92-1559, at 7, 9, 12-13. As we have noted, however, respondent is not seeking whatever compensation she allegedly was denied in 1954. Rather, she claims she still owns her interests in the allotments, and she seeks to force the Government to buy those interests. She claims, in essence, that no legally cognizable taking has yet occurred. See Brief for Respondent 3-4. Respondent and the Court of Appeals view payment rather than return of the land as an appropriate remedy because respondent’s allotments now lie within the Chippewa National Forest. But neither views this payment as representing damages for the Government’s past acts, the essence of a Tucker Act claim for monetary relief. See, e. g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206 (1983). Since this Indian respondent’s claim was not based on the Tucker Act, her appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was proper.

IV

Federal law rightly provides Indians with a range of special protections. But even for Indian plaintiffs, “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity ‘cannot be lightly implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U. S. 535, 538 (1980), quoting United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1, 4 (1969). Congress has consented to a suit challenging the Federal Government’s title to real property only if the action is brought within the 12-year period set by the Quiet Title Act. The limitations provision of the Quiet Title Act reflects a clear congressional judgment that the national public interest requires barring stale challenges to the United States’ claim to real property, whatever the merits of those challenges. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

       For a general discussion of the allotment program, see F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 612-632 (1982).

       By the Act of May 14, 1948, ch. 293, 62 Stat. 236, 25 U. S. C. §483, the Secretary of the Interior “is authorized in his discretion, and upon application of the Indians owners ... to remove restrictions against alienation, and to approve conveyances, with respect to lands or interests in lands held by individual Indians.”

       No contemporaneous document concerning the third allotment appears in the record.

       In the late 1970’s, the Bureau sought to identify potential land claims that might be affected by the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U. S. C. § 2415 (1982 ed. and Supp. II), which pertains, among other things, to certain contract and tort actions brought by the United States on behalf of Indians. (In 1982, § 2415 was amended to apply, as well, to contract and tort claims brought by individual Indians and tribes.) The Bureau identified as “Secretarial transfers” those sales made without the consent of all the heirs. See H. R. Rep. No. 97-954, p. 7 (1982); see generally County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U. S. 226, 242-243 (1985) (discussing § 2415 claims).

       The District Court also rejected respondent’s arguments that § 2401(a) does not apply to suits by Indians for breach of fiduciary duties, and that § 2415’s special provisions dealing with Indian land claims override the general statute of limitations established by § 2401(a). With respect to the former claim, the court stated: “By its very terms 28 U. S. C. § 2401(a) applies to ‘every civil action commenced against the United States. . . . ’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a (emphasis in District Court opinion). With respect to the latter claim, the court held that §2415 “applies to actions brought on behalf of a recognized tribe or individual Indian” by the United States (emphasis in original). App. to Pet. for Cert. 10a. It does not, however, “permit claims against the United States.” Id., at 10a-lla (emphasis in original).

       In urging that such an exemption be included in the Quiet Title Act, the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior noted that excluding suits against the United States seeking title to lands held by the United States in trust for Indians was necessary to prevent abridgment of “solemn obligations” and “specific commitments” that the Federal Government had made to the Indians regarding Indian lands. A unilateral waiver of the Federal Government’s immunity would subject those lands to suit without the Indians’ consent. See H. R. Rep. No. 92-1559, p. 13 (1972).

       Our finding that respondent's cause of action accrued more than 12 years prior to her filing suit does not rest on the fact that the letter sent by the Government in 1953 informed respondent that the failure to reply within 10 days would be deemed a consent to the sale. That letter expressly noted that the land would be sold only if a bid of at least its appraised value were received. App. 15. It therefore was entirely possible that no sale would occur even if respondent expressly had consented to the sale. Respondent’s cause of action accrued only because she in fact knew that a sale had been completed and knew, or should have known, that the Government was the purchaser.

       Title 25 U. S. C. § 345 reads in full:
      “All persons who are in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent who are entitled to an allotment of land under any law of Congress, or who claim to be so entitled to land under any allotment Act or under any grant made by Congress, or who claim to have been unlawfully denied or excluded from any allotment or parcel of land to which they claim to be lawfully entitled by virtue of any Act of Congress, may commence and prosecute or defend any action, suit, or proceeding in relation to their right thereto in the proper district court of the United States; and said district courts are given jurisdiction to try and determine any action, suit, or proceeding arising within their respective jurisdictions involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty (and in said suit the parties thereto shall be the claimant as plaintiff and the United States as party defendant); and the judgment or decree of any such court in favor of any claimant to an allotment of land shall have the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him, but this provision shall not apply to any lands now held by either of the Five Civilized Tribes, nor to any of the lands within the Quapaw Indian Agency: Provided, That the right of appeal shall be allowed to either party as in other cases.”
      A corresponding provision governing district court jurisdiction appears in 28 U. S. C. § 1353. Respondent invoked jurisdiction under both § 345 and § 1353 in her complaint. App. 7.

       In fact, § 345 has been used by Indians to sue parties other than the United States to quiet title to land originally given under various allotment schemes. See, e. g., Begay v. Albers, 721 F. 2d 1274 (CA10 1983); Vicenti v. United States, 470 F. 2d 845 (CA10 1972), cert. dism’d, 414 U. S. 1057 (1973) (plaintiffs sought recovery of title from private parties; suit against the United States for damages held barred by sovereign immunity). To hold that in all cases brought under § 345 the United States must be named as a party defendant would restrict the access to federal courts afforded Indians raising claims or defenses involving their land entitlements because the United States would obviously not be a proper party in many private disputes that relate to land claims originally granted by various Allotment Acts.

       The Indian Claims Limitation Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 1976, which amended 28 U. S. C. § 2415(a), essentially tolls— for a time — the general 6-year statute of limitations for many damages actions that may be brought by the Federal Government on behalf of Indians. Respondent claims that § 2415 also shows that Congress did not intend the general 6-year statute of limitations for damages actions brought against the Federal Government, 28 U. S. C. § 2401, to apply to her claim. But § 2415 is expressly inapplicable to actions “to establish the title to, or right of possession of, real or personal property.” 28 U. S. C. § 2415(c). In County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U. S., at 240-241, the Court concluded that Indian land claims not subject to any federal limitations period were presumptively exempt from state statutes of limitations as well. Respondent’s claim, however, is based on a particular federal statute — the Quiet Title Act — that contains its own limitations period.

       Under 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(2), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit possesses exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court’s decision
      “if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1346 of this title, except that jurisdiction of an appeal in a case brought in a district court under section 1346(a)(1), 1346(b), 1346(e), or 1346(f) of this title or under section 1346(a)(2) when the claim is founded upon an Act of Congress or a regulation of an executive department providing for internal revenue shall be governed by sections 1291,1292, and 1294 of this title [the provisions granting jurisdiction to the regional courts of appeals].”
      Thus, if the District Court’s jurisdiction here depended on the Tucker Act, § 1346(a)(2), then the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over respondent’s appeal, and we would have to vacate its’judgment and remand the case with directions to transfer the appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1631 to the Federal Circuit. See, e. g., Ballam v. United States, 474 U. S. 898 (1986); Pacyna v. Marsh, 474 U. S. 1078 (1986).
      In light of our conclusion that the District Court’s jurisdiction was not based on the Tucker Act, but instead rested on § 1346(f) (Quiet Title Act claims), we need not reach the difficult and unsettled question of how an appeal raising both issues committed to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction and issues outside its jurisdiction is to be treated. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 97-275, pp. 19-20 (1981); H. R. Rep. No. 97-312, p. 41 (1981); Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — 1981, Hearings on H. R. 2405 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 90 (1981) (testimony of James W. Geriak); Cihlar & Goldstein, A Dialogue About the Potential Issues in the Patent Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 10 APLA Q. J. 284 (1982); Drabiak, Jurisdiction of the New Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 73 Ill. B. J. 218 (1984); Newman, Tails and Dogs: Patent and Antitrust Appeals in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 10 APLA Q. J. 237 (1982) (all discussing the issue in the context of patent appeals that also raise antitrust claims).
      In particular, we express no opinion on the question whether, since § 1295(a)(2) explicitly disclaims Federal Circuit jurisdiction over claims based on § 1346(f), and the Federal Circuit is a court of limited jurisdiction, see H. R. Rep. No. 97-312, swpra, at 39, an appeal in a case raising both Tucker Act and Quiet Title Act claims would have to be bifurcated and sent in part to the regional circuit and in part to the Federal Circuit. Cf. S. Rep. No. 97-275, supra, at 20.

       The broad reference to “seetio[n] 1346” is somewhat opaque. Section 1346(f), in fact, grants the district courts “exclusive original jurisdiction of civil actions under section 2409a.” The exclusion in § 2409a therefore cannot be read to include all suits that can be brought under § 1346. We think, however, that the exclusion of suits brought under § 1491 — the Tucker Act provision granting the Claims Court jurisdiction — supports finding a similar exclusion of suits brought under § 1346(a)(2) — the analogous district court provision.


author: Justice Stevens

text:
    REED v. CAMPBELL, individually and as administratrix of the ESTATE OF RICKER
    No. 85-755.
    Argued April 30, 1986
    Decided June 11, 1986
    Stevens, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      R. Stephen McNally argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.

      Paul McCollum argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Kathleen M. McCulloch and Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Prince Ricker, appellant’s father, died intestate on December 22, 1976. At that time, § 38 of the Texas Probate Code provided that a decedent’s estate should descend to “his children and their descendants,” but §42 prohibited an illegitimate child from inheriting from her father unless her parents had subsequently married. In Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977)—decided four months after Ricker’s death— we held that a total statutory disinheritance, from the paternal estate, of children born out of wedlock and not legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents is unconstitutional. In this case, the Texas Court of Appeals held that §42 of the Texas Probate Code nevertheless prevented appellant from sharing in her father’s estate because Trimble does not apply retroactively. The Texas Supreme Court refused appellant’s application of error, noting “no reversible error.” We noted probable jurisdiction, 474 U. S. 1018 (1985), and now reverse.

I

Only a few facts need be stated. In November 1957, Prince Ricker and appellant’s mother participated in a ceremonial marriage, but it was invalid because Ricker’s divorce from his first wife was not final. Appellant was born a year later. Ricker was lawfully married three times, once before and twice after his liaison with appellant’s mother. He was survived by five legitimate children (two from his first and three from his third marriage) and by appellant.

Shortly after Ricker’s death in 1976, his oldest daughter was appointed administratrix of his estate. The estate was still open in February 1978, when appellant formally notified the administratrix and the Probate Court of her claim to a one-sixth share of the estate. In due course, she filed a formal complaint; a jury found that Ricker was her father but the trial court concluded that he was never validly married to her mother and denied her claim.

In the Court of Appeals, appellant contended that she was entitled to inherit even if she was illegitimate because § 42 was unconstitutional, and also that she was entitled to be legitimated on various theories. The appellate court rejected all her arguments.

II

Although the question presented in this case is framed in terms of “retroactivity,” its answer is governed by a rather clear distinction that has emerged from our cases considering the constitutionality of statutory provisions that impose special burdens on illegitimate children. In these cases, we have unambiguously concluded that a State may not justify discriminatory treatment of illegitimates in order to express its disapproval of their parents’ misconduct. We have, however, also recognized that there is a permissible basis for some “distinctions made in part on the basis of legitimacy”; specifically, we have upheld statutory provisions that have an evident and substantial relation to the State’s interest in providing for the orderly and just distribution of a decedent’s property at death. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259 (1978).

The state interest in the orderly disposition of decedents’ estates may justify the imposition of special requirements upon an illegitimate child who asserts a right to inherit from her father, and, of course, it justifies the enforcement of generally applicable limitations on the time and the manner in which claims may be asserted. After an estate has been finally distributed, the interest in finality may provide an additional, valid justification for barring the belated assertion of claims, even though they may be meritorious and even though mistakes of law or fact may have occurred during the probate process. We find no such justification for the State’s rejection of appellant’s claim in this case.

The Texas courts have relied on Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 (1977), as a basis for holding § 42 invalid in cases that were pending on April 26, 1977 — the date Trimble was decided. See Winn v. Lackey, 618 S. W. 2d 910 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981); Lovejoy v. Lillie, 569 S. W. 2d 501 (Texas Civ. App. 1978). Although the administration of Prince Ricker’s estate was in progress on that date, the court refused to apply Trimble because appellant’s claim was not asserted until later. Thus, the test applied by the Texas court resulted in the denial of appellant’s claim because of the conjunction of two facts: (1) her father died before April 26, 1977, and (2) her claim was filed after April 26, 1977.

There is nothing in the record to explain why these two facts, either separately or in combination, should have prevented the applicability of Trimble, and the allowance of appellant’s claim, at the time when the trial court was required to make a decision. At that time, the governing law had been established: Trimble had been decided, and it was clear that §42 was invalid. The state interest in the orderly administration of Prince Ricker’s estate would have been served equally well regardless of how the merits of the claim were resolved. In this case, then, neither the date of his death nor the date the claim was filed had any impact on the relevant state interest in orderly administration; their conjunction similarly had no impact on that state interest.

The interest in equal treatment protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution — more specifically, the interest in avoiding unjustified discrimination against children born out of wedlock, see Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 505 (1976) — should therefore have been given controlling effect. That interest requires that appellant’s claim to a share in her father’s estate be protected by the full applicability of Trimble to her claim.

The judgment of the Texas Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       See Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 38(a) (Vernon 1980) (“Where any person having title to any estate, . . . shall die intestate, leaving no husband or wife, it shall descend and pass in parcenary to his kindred, male and female, in the following course: 1. To his children and their descendants . . .”).

       See Tex. Prob. Code Ann. §42 (Vernon 1956) (“For the purpose of inheritance to, through, and from an illegitimate child, such child shall be treated the same as if he were the legitimate child of his mother, so that he and his issue shall inherit from his mother and from his maternal kindred, both descendants, ascendants, and collaterals in all degrees, and they may inherit from him”) (emphasis added).

       “Under the rule of Winn v. Lackey, [618 S. W. 2d 910 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)] and the out-of-state cases cited therein, the equal protection argument fails as Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762 . . . (1977), has not been applied retroactively where the father died before the case came down and suit was filed afterwards.” 682 S. W. 2d 697, 700 (Tex. App. 1984).

       In her jurisdictional statement, appellant raised several questions that relate to the legitimation issue. Because we hold that she is entitled to relief on her principal claim, and because the legitimation questions appear not to have been properly presented as federal questions, see appellant’s brief before the Texas Court of Appeals (presenting only the Trimble question as a federal constitutional issue), we do not reach the legitimation issue.

       “It is true, of course, that the legal status of illegitimacy, however defined, is, like race or national origin, a characteristic determined by causes not within the control of the illegitimate individual, and it bears no relation to the individual’s ability to participate in and contribute to society. The Court recognized in Weber [v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164 (1972)] that visiting condemnation upon the child in order to express society’s disapproval of the parents’ liaisons
      ‘“is illogical and unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities on the illegitimate child is contrary to the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing. Obviously, no child is responsible for his birth and penalizing the illegitimate child is an ineffectual — as well as an unjust — way of deterring the parent.’ 406 U. S., at 175. (Footnote omitted.)” Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 505 (1976).

        Ibid.

       “The presence in this case of the State’s interest in the.orderly disposition of a decedent’s property at death distinguishes it from others in which that justification for an illegitimacy-based classification was absent. E. g., Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U. S. 628 (1974); Gomez v. Perez, 409 U. S. 535 (1973); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 170 (1972); Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 68 (1968).” 439 U. S., at 268, n. 6 (opinion of Powell, J.).
      Although the dissenters did not believe the state interest was sufficient to support the particular statute before the Court in that ease, they agreed with the basic proposition that this state interest may justify some differential treatment — “New York might require illegitimates to prove paternity by an elevated standard of proof,” id., at 279 (Brennan, J., dissenting).

       In addition to concluding that Trimble did not apply, the Texas Court of Appeals stated that “[e]ven if the plaintiff could claim under section 42(b) as amended, her exclusion from the inheritance under that statute does not deny her constitutional equal protection since a rational state basis supports that legislation.” 682 S. W. 2d, at 700. We read that statement, not as an alternative ground for the court’s judgment, but as the rejection of an alternative ground for appellant’s recovery. To read it as assuming that the amended statute defeated appellant’s claim, even if Trimble applied, would, in the context of this case and the amended statute’s requirements, raise serious due process questions.


text:
    EAST RIVER STEAMSHIP CORP. et al. v. TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INC.
    No. 84-1726.
    Argued January 21, 1986
    Decided June 16, 1986
    Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Thomas E. Durkin, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., and George J. Koelzer.

      Robert E. Smith, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Norman L. Greene, Barry M. Okun, Maria Echaveste, and Waldron Kraemer

       Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Pott Industries, Inc., by W. Stanley Walch and James W. Erwin; and for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., et al. by Herbert Rubin, Michael Hoenig, David B. Hamm, William H. Crabtree, and Edward P. Good.

   Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this admiralty case, we must decide whether a cause of action in tort is stated when a defective product purchased in a commercial transaction malfunctions, injuring only the product itself and causing purely economic loss. The case requires us to consider preliminarily whether admiralty law, which already recognizes a general theory of liability for negligence, also incorporates principles of products liability, including strict liability. Then, charting a course between products liability and contract law, we must determine whether injury to a product itself is the kind of harm that should be protected by products liability or left entirely to the law of contracts.

I

In 1969, Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. (Shipbuilding), a wholly owned subsidiary of Seatrain Lines, Inc. (Seatrain), announced it would build the four oil-transporting supertankers in issue — the T. T. Stuyvesant, T. T. Williamsburgh, T. T. Brooklyn, and T. T. Bay Ridge. Each tanker was constructed pursuant to a contract in which a separate wholly owned subsidiary of Seatrain engaged Shipbuilding. Shipbuilding in turn contracted with respondent, now known as Transamerica Delaval Inc. (Delaval), to design, manufacture, and supervise the installation of turbines (costing $1.4 million each, see App. 163) that would be the main propulsion units for the 225,000-ton, $125 million, ibid., supertankers. When each ship was completed, its title was transferred from the contracting subsidiary to a trust company (as trustee for an owner), which in turn chartered the ship to one of the petitioners, also subsidiaries of Seatrain. Queensway Tankers, Inc., chartered the Stuyvesant; Kingsway Tankers, Inc., chartered the Williamsburgh; East River Steamship Corp. chartered the Brooklyn; and Richmond Tankers, Inc., chartered the Bay Ridge. Each petitioner operated under a bareboat charter, by which it took full control of the ship for 20 or 22 years as though it owned it, with the obligation after-wards to return the ship to the real owner. See G. Gilmore & C. Black, Admiralty §§4-1, 4-22 (2d ed. 1975). Each charterer assumed responsibility for the cost of any repairs to the ships. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11, 16-17, 35.

The Stuyvesant sailed on its maiden voyage in late July 1977. On December 11 of that year, as the ship was about to enter the Port of Valdez, Alaska, steam began .to escape from the casing of the high-pressure turbine. That problem was temporarily resolved by repairs, but before long, while the ship was encountering a severe storm in the Gulf of Alaska, the high-pressure turbine malfunctioned. The ship, though lacking its normal power, was able to continue on its journey to Panama and then San Francisco. In January 1978, an examination of the high-pressure turbine revealed that the first-stage steam reversing ring virtually had disintegrated and had caused additional damage to other parts of the turbine. The damaged part was replaced with a part from the Bay Ridge, which was then under construction. In April 1978, the ship again was repaired, this time with a part from the Brooklyn. Finally, in August, the ship was permanently and satisfactorily repaired with a ring newly designed and manufactured by Delaval.

The Brooklyn and the Williamsburgh were put into service in late 1973 and late 1974, respectively. In 1978, as a result of the Stuyvesant’s problems, they were inspected while in port. Those inspections revealed similar turbine damage. Temporary repairs were made, and newly designed parts were installed as permanent repairs that summer.

When the Bay Ridge was completed in early 1979, it contained the newly designed parts and thus never experienced the high-pressure turbine problems that plagued the other three ships. Nonetheless, the complaint appears to claim damages as a result of deterioration of the Bay Ridge’s ring that was installed in the Stuyvesant while the Bay Ridge was under construction. In addition, the Bay Ridge experienced a unique problem. In 1980, when the ship was on its maiden voyage, the engine began to vibrate with a frequency that increased even after speed was reduced. It turned out that the astern guardian valve, located between the high-pressure and low-pressure turbines, had been installed backwards. Because of that error, steam entered the low-pressure turbine and damaged it. After repairs, the Bay Ridge resumed its travels.

II

The charterers’ second amended complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, invokes admiralty jurisdiction. It contains five counts alleging tortious conduct on the part of respondent Delaval and seeks an aggregate of more than $8 million in damages for the cost of repairing the ships and for income lost while the ships were out of service. The first four counts, read liberally, allege that Delaval is strictly liable for the design defects in the high-pressure turbines of the Stuyvesant, the Williams-burgh, the Brooklyn, and the Bay Ridge, respectively. The fifth count alleges that Delaval, as part of the manufacturing process, negligently supervised the installation of the astern guardian valve on the Bay Ridge. The initial complaint also had listed Seatrain and Shipbuilding as plaintiffs and had alleged breach of contract and warranty as well as tort claims. But after Delaval interposed a statute of limitations defense, the complaint was amended and the charterers alone brought the suit in tort. The nonrenewed claims were dismissed with prejudice by the District Court. Delaval then moved for summary judgment, contending that the charterers’ actions were not cognizable in tort.

The District Court granted summary judgment for De~ laval, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed. East River S.S. Corp. v. Delaval Turbine, Inc., 752 F. 2d 903 (1985). The Court of Appeals held that damage solely to a defective product is actionable in tort if the defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm to persons or property other than the product itself, and harm materializes. Disappointments over the product’s quality, on the other hand, are protected by warranty law. Id., at 908, 909-910. The charterers were dissatisfied with product quality: the defects involved gradual and unnoticed deterioration of the turbines’ component parts, and the only risk created was that the turbines would operate at a lower capacity. Id., at 909. See Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 652 F. 2d 1165, 1169-1170 (CA3 1981). Therefore, neither the negligence claim nor the strict-liability claim was cognizable.

Judge Garth concurred on “grounds somewhat different,” 752 F. 2d, at 910, and Judge Becker, joined by Judge Higginbotham, concurred in part and dissented in part. Id., at 913. Although Judge Garth agreed with the majority’s analysis on the merits, he found no strict-liability claim presented because the charterers had failed to allege unreasonable danger or demonstrable injury.

Judge Becker largely agreed with the majority’s approach, but would permit recovery for a “near miss,” where the risk existed but no calamity occurred. He felt that the first count, concerning the Stuyvesant, stated a cause of action in tort. The exposure of the ship to a severe storm when the ship was unable to operate at full power due to the defective part created an unreasonable risk of harm.

We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals sitting in admiralty. 474 U. S. 814 (1985).

Ill

A

Initially, we conclude that the fourth count should have been dismissed because Richmond Tankers, Inc., the charterer of the Bay Ridge, lacks standing to bring a claim relating to the defective ring that was removed from the Bay Ridge when it was still under construction. The ring was installed in the Stuyvesant where it remained until April 1978, when it was removed due to disintegration. Richmond did not charter the Bay Ridge until May 1979, after the ship was completed with a newly designed, nondefective, high-pressure turbine. See Plaintiffs’ Answers to First Set of Interrogatories of Defendants, No. 42. Richmond therefore can allege no cognizable injury. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 501 (1975). Richmond, of course, has standing to bring the claim raised in the fifth count, as the damage from the reverse installation of the astern guardian valve allegedly occurred after Richmond chartered the Bay Ridge.

B

The torts alleged in the first, second, third, and fifth counts clearly fall within the admiralty jurisdiction. The claims satisfy the traditional “locality” requirement — that the wrong must have occurred on the high seas or navigable waters. See, e. g., The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 35-36 (1866). The first and fifth counts allege that the injury to the Stuyvesant’s high-pressure turbine and the Bay Ridge’s low-pressure turbine occurred while the ships were sailing on the high seas. The damage to the Williamsburgh and the Brooklyn, alleged in the second and third counts, occurred at sea, and was discovered in port, also a maritime locale. See Southern S.S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U. S. 31, 41 (1942).

When torts have occurred on navigable waters within the United States, the Court has imposed an additional requirement of a “maritime nexus” — that the wrong must bear “a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.” See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249, 268 (1972); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 457 U. S. 668 (1982). We need not reach the question whether a maritime nexus also must be established when a tort occurs on the high seas. Were there such a requirement, it clearly was met here, for these ships were engaged in maritime commerce, a primary concern of admiralty law.

C

With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive admiralty law. See Executive Jet Aviation, 409 U. S., at 255. Absent a relevant statute, the general maritime law, as developed by the judiciary, applies. United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397, 409 (1975); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 160-161 (1920). Drawn from state and federal sources, the general maritime law is an amalgam of traditional common-law rules, modifications of those rules, and newly created rules. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U. S. 625, 630 (1959); Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354, 373-375 (1959). This Court has developed a body of maritime tort principles, see, e. g., Kermarec, supra, at 632; see generally Currie, Federalism and the Admiralty: “The Devil’s Own Mess,” 1960 S. Ct. Rev. 158, 164, and is now asked to incorporate products-liability concepts, long a part of the common law of torts, into the general maritime law. See Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques, 323 F. 2d 257, 260 (CA2 1963), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 949 (1964).

The Courts of Appeals sitting in admiralty overwhelmingly have adopted concepts of products liability, based both on negligence, Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co., 149 F. 2d 98, 99-100 (CA3 1945), aff’d on other grounds, 328 U. S. 85 (1946), and on strict liability, Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Constr. & Design Co., 565 F. 2d 1129, 1135 (CA9 1977) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)). Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit previously had stated that the question whether principles of strict products liability are part of maritime law “is no longer seriously contested.” Ocean Barge Transport Co. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 726 F. 2d 121, 123 (1984) (citing cases).

We join the Courts of Appeals in recognizing products liability, including strict liability, as part of the general maritime law. This Court’s precedents relating to injuries of maritime workers long have pointed in that direction. See Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85, 94 (1946) (strict liability for unseaworthiness); Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione v. Oregon Stevedoring Co., 376 U. S. 315, 322 (1964) (strict liability for breach of implied warranty of workmanlike service). The Court’s rationale in those cases —that strict liability should be imposed on the party best able to protect persons from hazardous equipment — is equally applicable when the claims are based on products liability. Compare Sieracki, 328 U. S., at 93-94, with Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 462, 150 P. 2d 436, 441 (1944) (concurring opinion). And to the extent that products actions are based on negligence, they are grounded in principles already incorporated into the general maritime law. See Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U. S., at 632. Our incorporation of products liability into maritime law, however, is only the threshold determination to the main issue in this case.

IV

Products liability grew out of a public policy judgment that people need more protection from dangerous products than is afforded by the law of warranty. See Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d 9, 15, 403 P. 2d 145, 149 (1965). It is clear, however, that if this development were allowed to progress too far, contract law would drown in a sea of tort. See G. Gilmore, The Death of Contract 87-94 (1974). We must determine whether a commercial product injuring itself is the kind of harm against which public policy requires manufacturers to protect, independent of any contractual obligation.

A

The paradigmatic products-liability action is one where a product “reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril,” distributed without reinspection, causes bodily injury. See, e. g., MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382, 389, 111 N. E. 1051, 1053 (1916). The manufacturer is liable whether or not it is negligent because “public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market.” Escola v. Coca Cola Bot tling Co. of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d, at 462, 150 P. 2d, at 441 (opinion concurring in judgment).

For similar reasons of safety, the manufacturer’s duty of care was broadened to include protection against property damage. See Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 207 Wis. 209, 226, 240 N. W. 392, 399 (1932); Genesee County Patrons Fire Relief Assn. v. L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc., 263 N. Y. 463, 469-473, 189 N. E. 551, 553-555 (1934). Such damage is considered so akin to personal injury that the two are treated alike. See Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d, at 19, 403 P. 2d, at 152.

In the traditional “property damage” cases, the defective product damages other property. In this case, there was no damage to “other” property. Rather, the first, second, and third counts allege that each supertanker’s defectively designed turbine components damaged only the turbine itself. Since each turbine was supplied by Delaval as an integrated package, see App. 162-163, each is properly regarded as a single unit. “Since all but the very simplest of machines have component parts, [a contrary] holding would require a finding of ‘property damage’ in virtually every case where a product damages itself. Such a holding would eliminate the distinction between warranty and strict products liability.” Northern Power & Engineering Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 623 P. 2d 324, 330 (Alaska 1981). The fifth count also alleges injury to the product itself. Before the high-pressure and low-pressure turbines could become an operational propulsion system, they were connected to piping and valves under the supervision of Delaval personnel. See App. 78, 162-163, 181. Delaval’s supervisory obligations were part of its manufacturing agreement. The fifth count thus can best be read to allege that Delaval’s negligent manufacture of the propulsion system — by allowing the installation in reverse of the astern guardian valve — damaged the propulsion system. Cf. Lewis v. Timco, Inc., 736 F. 2d 163, 165-166 (CA5 1984). Obviously, damage to a product itself has certain attributes of a products-liability claim. But the injury suffered — the failure of the product to function properly — is the essence of a warranty action, through which a contracting party can seek to recoup the benefit of its bargain.

B

The intriguing question whether injury to a product itself may be brought in tort has spawned a variety of answers. At one end of the spectrum, the case that created the majority land-based approach, Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d 9, 403 P. 2d 145 (1965) (defective truck), held that preserving a proper role for the law of warranty precludes imposing tort liability if a defective product causes purely monetary harm. See also Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 626 F. 2d 280, 287, and n. 13 (CA3 1980) (citing cases).

At the other end of the spectrum is the minority land-based approach, whose progenitor, Santor v. A & M Karagheusian, Inc., 44 N. J. 52, 66-67, 207 A. 2d 305, 312-313 (1965) (marred carpeting), held that a manufacturer’s duty to make nondefective products encompassed injury to the product itself, whether or not the defect created an unreasonable risk of harm. See also LaCrosse v. Schubert, Schroeder & Associates, Inc., 72 Wis. 2d 38, 44-45, 240 N. W. 2d 124, 127-128 (1976). The courts adopting this approach, including the majority of the Courts of Appeals sitting in admiralty that have considered the issue, e. g., Emerson G. M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enterprise, 732 F. 2d 1468 (CA9 1984), find that the safety and insurance rationales behind strict liability apply equally where the losses are purely economic. These courts reject the Seely approach because they find it arbitrary that economic losses are recoverable if a plaintiff suffers bodily injury or property damage, but not if a product injures itself. They also find no inherent difference between economic loss and personal injury or property damage, because all are proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct. Further, they believe recovery for economic loss would not lead to unlimited liability because they think a manufacturer can predict and insure against product failure. See Emerson G. M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enterprise, 732 F. 2d, at 1474.

Between the two poles fall a number of cases that would permit a products-liability action under certain circumstances when a product injures only itself. These cases attempt to differentiate between “the disappointed users . . . and the endangered ones,” Russell v. Ford Motor Co., 281 Ore. 587, 595, 575 P. 2d 1383, 1387 (1978), and permit only the latter to sue in tort. The determination has been said to turn on the nature of the defect, the type of risk, and the manner in which the injury arose. See Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 652 F. 2d, at 1173 (relied on by the Court of Appeals in this case). The Alaska Supreme Court allows a tort action if the defective product creates a situation potentially dangerous to persons or other property, and loss occurs as a proximate result of that danger and under dangerous circumstances. Northern Power & Engineering Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 623 P. 2d 324, 329 (1981).

We find the intermediate and minority land-based positions unsatisfactory. The intermediate positions, which essentially turn on the degree of risk, are too indeterminate to enable manufacturers easily to structure their business behavior. Nor do we find persuasive a distinction that rests on the manner in which the product is injured. We realize that the damage may be qualitative, occurring through gradual deterioration or internal breakage. Or it may be calamitous. Compare Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc., 548 P. 2d 279 (Alaska 1976), with Cloud v. Kit Mfg. Co., 563 P. 2d 248, 251 (Alaska 1977). But either way, since by definition no person or other property is damaged, the resulting loss is purely economic. Even when the harm to the product itself occurs through an abrupt, accident-like event, the resulting loss due to repair costs, decreased value, and lost profits is essentially the failure of the purchaser to receive the benefit of its bargain — traditionally the core concern of contract law. See E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 12.8, pp. 839-840 (1982).

We also decline to adopt the minority land-based view espoused by Santor and Emerson. Such cases raise legitimate questions about the theories behind restricting products liability, but we believe that the countervailing arguments are more powerful. The minority view fails to account for the need to keep products liability and contract law in separate spheres and to maintain a realistic limitation on damages.

C

Exercising traditional discretion in admiralty, see Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 409 (1953), we adopt an approach similar to Seely and hold that a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products-liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself.

“The distinction that the law has drawn between tort recovery for physical injuries and warranty recovery for economic loss is not arbitrary and does not rest on the ‘luck’ of one plaintiff in having an accident causing physical injury. The distinction rests, rather, on an understanding of the nature of the responsibility a manufacturer must undertake in distributing his products.” Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal. 2d, at 18, 403 P. 2d, at 151. When a product injures only itself the reasons for imposing a tort duty are weak and those for leaving the party to its contractual remedies are strong.

The tort concern with safety is reduced when an injury is only to the product itself. When a person is injured, the “cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune,” and one the person is not prepared to meet. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d, at 462, 150 P. 2d, at 441 (opinion concurring in judgment). In contrast, when a product injures itself, the commercial user stands to lose the value of the product, risks the displeasure of its customers who find that the product does not meet their needs, or, as in this case, experiences increased costs in performing a service. Losses like these can be insured. See 10A G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law §§42:385-42:401, 42:414-417 (2d ed. 1982);-7 E. Benedict, Admiralty, Form No. 1.16-7, p. 1-239 (7th ed. 1985); 5A J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice §3252 (1970). Society need not presume that a customer needs special protection. The increased cost to the public that would result from holding a manufacturer liable in tort for injury to the product itself is not justified. Cf. United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F. 2d 169, 173 (CA2 1947).

Damage to a product itself is most naturally understood as a warranty claim. Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer’s expectations, or, in other words, that the customer has received “insufficient product value.” See J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code 406 (2d ed. 1980). The maintenance of product value and quality is precisely the purpose of express and implied warranties. See UCC §2-313 (express warranty), §2-314 (implied warranty of merchantability), and § 2-315 (warranty of fitness for a particular purpose). Therefore, a claim of a nonworking product can be brought as a breach-of-warranty action. Or, if the customer prefers, it can reject the product or revoke its acceptance and sue for breach of contract. See UCC §§2-601, 2-608, 2-612.

Contract law, and the law of warranty in particular, is well suited to commercial controversies of the sort involved in this case because the parties may set the terms of their own agreements. The manufacturer can restrict its liability, within limits, by disclaiming warranties or limiting remedies. See UCC §§2-316, 2-719. In exchange, the purchaser pays less for the product. Since a commercial situation generally does not involve large disparities in bargaining power, cf. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N. J. 358, 161 A. 2d 69 (1960), we see no reason to intrude into the parties’ allocation of the risk.

While giving recognition to the manufacturer’s bargain, warranty law sufficiently protects the purchaser by allowing it to obtain the benefit of its bargain. See White & Summers, supra, ch. 10. The expectation damages available in warranty for purely economic loss give a plaintiff the full benefit of its bargain by compensating for forgone business opportunities. See Fuller & Perdue, The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages: 1, 46 Yale L. J. 52, 60-63 (1936); R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law §4.8 (3d ed. 1986). Recovery on a warranty theory would give the charterers their repair costs and lost profits, and would place them in the position they would have been in had the turbines functioned properly. See Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N. H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929). Thus, both the nature of the injury and the resulting damages indicate it is more natural to think of injury to a product itself in terms of warranty.

A warranty action also has a built-in limitation on liability, whereas a tort action could subject the manufacturer to damages of an indefinite amount. The limitation in a contract action comes from the agreement of the parties and the requirement that consequential damages, such as lost profits, be a foreseeable result of the breach. See Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854). In a warranty action where the loss is purely economic, the limitation derives from the requirements of foreseeability and of privity, which is still generally enforced for such claims in a commercial setting. See UCC §2-715; White & Summers, swpra, at 389, 396, 406-410.

In products-liability law, where there is a duty to the public generally, foreseeability is an inadequate brake. Cf. Kinsman Transit Co. v. City of Buffalo, 388 F. 2d 821 (CA2 1968). See also Perlman, Interference with Contract and Other Economic Expectancies: A Clash of Tort and Contract Doctrine, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 61, 71-72 (1982). Permitting recovery for all foreseeable claims for purely economic loss could make a manufacturer liable for vast sums. It would be difficult for a manufacturer to take into account the expectations of persons downstream who may encounter its product. In this case, for example, if the charterers — already one step removed from the transaction — were permitted to recover their economic losses, then the companies that subchartered the ships might claim their economic losses from the delays, and the charterers’ customers also might claim their economic losses, and so on. “The law does not spread its protection so far.” Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U. S. 303, 309 (1927).

And to the extent that courts try to limit purely economic damages in tort, they do so by relying on a far murkier line, one that negates the charterers’ contention that permitting such recovery under a prcducts-liability theory enables admiralty courts to avoid difficult line drawing. Cf. Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N. Y. 170, 174 N. E. 441 (1931); Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 752 F. 2d 1019, 1046-1052 (CA5 1985) (en banc) (dissenting opinion), cert. pending sub nom. White v. M/V Testbank, No. 84-1808.

D

For the first three counts, the defective turbine components allegedly injured only the turbines themselves. Therefore, a strict products-liability theory of recovery is unavailable to the charterers. Any warranty claims would be subject to Delaval’s limitation, both in time and scope, of its warranty liability. App. 78-79. The record indicates that Seatrain and Delaval reached a settlement agreement. Deposition of Stephen Russell, p. 32. We were informed that these charterers could not have asserted the warranty claims. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. Even so, the charterers should be left to the terms of their bargains, which explicitly allocated the cost of repairs.

In the charterers’ agreements with the owners, the charterers took the ships in “as is” condition, after inspection, and assumed full responsibility for them, including responsibility for maintenance and repairs and for obtaining certain forms of insurance. Id., at 11, 16-17, 35; App. 86, 88, 99, 101, 112, 114, 125-126, 127. In a separate agreement between each charterer and Seatrain, Seatrain agreed to guarantee certain payments and covenants by each charterer to the owner. Id., at 142-156. The contractual responsibilities thus were clearly laid out. There is no reason to extricate the parties from their bargain.

Similarly, in the fifth count, alleging the reverse installation of the astern guardian valve, the only harm was to the propulsion system itself rather than to. persons or other property. Even assuming that Delaval’s supervision was negligent, as we must on this summary judgment motion, Delaval owed no duty under a products-liability theory based on negligence to avoid causing purely economic loss. Cf. Flintkote Co. v. Dravo Corp., 678 F. 2d 942 (CA11 1982); S. M. Wilson & Co. v. Smith International, Inc., 587 F. 2d 1363 (CA9 1978). Thus, whether stated in negligence or strict liability, no products-liability claim lies in admiralty when the only injury claimed is economic loss.

While we hold that the fourth count should have been dismissed, we affirm the entry of judgment for Delaval.

It is so ordered.

       Compare East River S.S. Corp. v. Delaval Turbine, Inc., 752 F. 2d 903 (CA3 1985) (en bane) (this case), with Ingram River Equipment, Inc. v. Pott Industries, Inc., 756 F. 2d 649 (CA8 1985), cert. pending, No. 85-12; Miller Industries v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 733 F. 2d 813 (CA11 1984); Emerson G. M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enterprise, 732 F. 2d 1468 (CA9 1984). See also Pan-Alaska Fisheries, Inc. v. Marine Constr. & Design Co., 565 F. 2d 1129 (CA9 1977); and Jig The Third Corp. v. Puritan Marine Ins. Underwriters Corp., 519 F. 2d 171 (CA5 1975). Cf. Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 752 F. 2d 1019 (CA5 1985) (en bane), cert. pending sub nom. White v. M/V Testbank, No. 84-1808.

       The charterers do not ask us to defer to the law of New Jersey, the forum State. Nor is application of state-law principles required here. New Jersey lacks any “pressing and significant” interest in the tort action. See Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U. S. 731, 739 (1961). In any event, reliance on state law would not help the charterers’ case, since it mandates the same conclusion reached by the District Court and the Court of Appeals: that Delaval had no tort duty to the charterers. See Spring Motors

        Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 N. J. 555, 579, 489 A. 2d 660, 672 (1985).

       The question is not answered by the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 395 and 402A (1965), or by the Uniform Commercial Code, see Wade, Is Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts Preempted by the UCC and Therefore Unconstitutional?, 42 Tenn. L. Rev. 123 (1974).
      Congress, which has considered adopting national products-liability legislation, also has been wrestling with the question whether economic loss should be recoverable under a products-liability theory. See 1 L. Frumer & M. Friedman, Products Liability § 4C (1986). When S. 100, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985) (the Product Liability Act) was introduced, it excluded, § 2(6), recovery for commercial loss. Suggestions have been made for revising this provision. See Amendment 16, 131 Cong. Rec. 5461 (1985); Amendment 100, id., at 11850, 11851. Other bills also have addressed the issue. See S. 1999, id., at 38772 (1985); Amendment 1951, 132 Cong. Rec. 10304 (1986). See also H. R. 2568, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985); H. R. 4425, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986).
      The issue also is of concern in the area of conflict of laws. See R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws § 6.29 (2d ed. 1980).

       Interestingly, the New Jersey and California Supreme Courts have each taken what appears to be a step in the direction of the other since Santor and Seely. In Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 N. J., at 579, 489 A. 2d, at 672, the New Jersey court rejected Santor in the commercial context. And in J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 24 Cal. 3d 799, 598 P. 2d 60 (1979), the California court recognized a cause of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

       Most of the admiralty cases concerned fishing vessels. See Emerson G. M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enterprise, 732 F. 2d 1468, 1472 (CA9 1984) (relying on solicitude for fishermen as a reason for a more protective approach). Delaval concedes that the courts, see Carbone v. Ursich, 209 F. 2d 178, 182 (CA9 1953), and Congress, see 46 U. S. C. App. § 533 (1982 ed., Supp. II), at times have provided special protection for fishermen. This case involves no fishermen.

       We do not reach the issue whether a tort cause of action can ever be stated in admiralty when the only damages sought are economic. Cf. Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N. Y. 170, 174 N. E. 441 (1931). But see Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U. S. 303 (1927).

       If the charterers’ claims were brought as breach-of-warranty actions, they would not be within the admiralty jurisdiction. Since contracts relating to the construction of or supply of materials to a ship are not within the admiralty jurisdiction, see Thames Towboat Co. v. The Schooner “Francis McDonald”, 254 U. S. 242, 243 (1920); Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U. S., at 735, neither are warranty claims grounded in such contracts. See 1 E. Benedict, Admiralty § 188, p. 11-36 (7th ed. 1985). State law would govern the actions. See North Pacific S.S. Co. v. Hall Brothers Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co., 249 U. S. 119, 127 (1919). In particular the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted by 49 States, would apply.

       We recognize, of course, that warranty and products liability are not static bodies of law and may overlap. In certain situations, for example, the privity requirement of warranty has been discarded. E. g., Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N. J. 358, 380-384, 161 A. 2d 69, 81-84 (1960). In other circumstances, a manufacturer may be able to disclaim strict tort liability. See, e. g., Keystone Aeronautics Corp. v. R. J. Enstrom Corp., 499 F. 2d 146, 149 (CA3 1974). Nonetheless, the main currents of tort law run in different directions from those of contract and warranty, and the latter seem to us far more appropriate for commercial disputes of the kind involved here.

       In contrast, tort damages generally compensate the plaintiff for loss and return him to the position he occupied before the injury. Cf. Sullivan v. O’Connor, 363 Mass. 579, 584-586, 588, n. 6, 296 N. E. 2d 183, 187-188, 189, n. 6 (1973); Prosser, The Borderland of Tort and Contract, in Selected Topics on the Law of Torts 380, 424-427 (Thomas M. Cooley Lectures, Fourth Series 1953). Tort damages are analogous to reliance damages, which are awarded in contract when there is particular difficulty in measuring the expectation interest. See, e. g., Security Stove & Mfg. Co. v. American Railways Express Co., 227 Mo. App. 175, 51 S. W. 2d 572 (1932).