Independence Med. Supply, Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. Health & Human Servs.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that for multiple documents to be considered “a claim,” one document must “unambiguously state[ ] the costs involved” while another “cross-reference[s] the earlier document”
• finding that the “[i]mproper use of extra-contractual inspections,” in combination with other actions, “clearly constituted bad faith that breached the Army’s duty to cooperate” (citations omitted)
• noting that the sum certain requirement cannot be satisfied if the claim submission does not “definitively claim[] all or some specified amount of th[e] costs [identified by the contractor]”
• stating that administrative claims cannot “be cobbled together from various documents” and that a plaintiff must provide a “select group of documents” that “provide a clear and unequivocal indication as to the amount sought by plaintiff.”
• stating that the court was “concerned with the prospect of defendant using an investigation to supplement its discovery in a case before this court, an act that seemingly constitutes abuse of both the investigative and discovery processes”
• rejecting the government’s proposition that it is impossible to have “bad faith unless it is shown that a breach of an express contract provision has occurred”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).