Shifting Sands of Claim Accrual: John R. Sand & Gravel, Equitable Tolling, and the Suspension of Accrual in Tucker Act Cases

Abstract

The United States Court of Federal Claims plays an important and often overlooked role in our legal system. When the United States injures someone by violating the Constitution or a federal statute or by breaching a contract, filing a Tucker Act claim in the Court of Federal Claims is a plaintiff’s only avenue for securing significant monetary damages. Indeed, many plaintiffs successfully take advantage of that avenue: each year, the court awards damages in hundreds of cases against the federal government, with total damages often reaching or exceeding a billion dollars.

In recent years, however, a problematic inconsistency has arisen in Tucker Act cases. Because the Court of Federal Claims is usually a plaintiff’s only recourse for damages, plaintiffs often seek to extend the statute of limitations to preserve their claims. One doctrine plaintiffs have relied on to do so is the accrual suspension rule, which suspends the accrual of the limitations period when the United States conceals a claim or when the claim is “inherently unknowable.” Using the accrual suspension rule, however, directly undermines the Supreme Court’s holding in John R. Sand & Gravel that the statute of limitations for Tucker Act claims cannot be waived or equitably tolled. Although the accrual suspension rule and equitable tolling are different doctrines, an examination of their use in the context of Tucker Act claims demonstrates that they are two different means to the same end. This article, the first to examine this inconsistency, argues that modifying or overturning John R. Sand & Gravel is the only way to remedy this inconsistency without unfairly depriving many plaintiffs of a remedy for injuries caused by the United States.

Keywords: Tucker Act, Court of Federal Claims, accrual suspension, equitable tolling, claim accrual, statute of limitations