l0 is allowed as fair com-

r required to pay for rid-lso was an extraordinarys within the coverage ofnhi Oshima,, clnte, p. 24.ed which would support ary damage caused by thee confined to the amountiminate the infestation asyhich, if it had been per-n a reasonable and naturallusion. It is immaterialrcurred after the period oft. (See opinion denyinglalteshi Sakwai, supra.)t might be regarded as aed for the corrective worksrket value of the house'idence, might have beenrrk. Cf.. Nagam'ine ease,

bo put the house in con-lost (Mary Sogauta, ante,circumstances, have beenning whether or not theLn. Here, however, it and'e considered to have beenere more than covered bytional compensation mayt even though claimant'sbed for the extraordinarynuch less than he reason-entered into the arrange-

369

CLAIM OF MICHI IWAMOTO

lNo 146-35-408. Decided l0ilay 27, 79bdf

FINDINGS OF I'ACT

1. This claim, in the amount of $506, was received bythe Attorney General on February 2, Lg4g. It involvedthe loss through sale of a stove, refrigerators, sofa, chairs,table, rugs, sewing machine, and vacuum cleaner, and theloss of a carpet which was stored. Claimant has aisoasked for unemployment compensation in the amount of$256. Clairnant, at the time of her evacuation, was mar-ried to Kazumi J. Iwamoto. The property involved isthe community estate of clairnant and her husband whosigned a release authorizing his wife to claim for the whole.Kazumi J. Iwamoto filed a claim (No. 146-35*560) forother property than that involved here and an award wasmade on February 2, 1950. Claimant was born in Han-ford, California, on May 15, 1916. She and her husbandwere both born of Japanese parents. At no time sinceDecember 7, 1941, has either claimant or her husbandever gone to Japan. On December 7, 1941, and for some-time p,rior thereto, claimant resided at 42212 Breed Street,Los Angeles, California, and was living at that addresswhen she and her husband were evacuated on May 16,1942, under military orders pursuant to Executive OrderNo. 9066, dated February L9,1942, and sent to ManzanarRelocation Center, Manzanar, California.

2. Shortly before the claimant was evacuated, she soldfor $110 all of the above-mentioned properby with theexception of the ca,rpet. The property sold then hada fair value of S333. IIer act was rea,fnnable in thecircumstances.

3. Claimant stored the carpet, which was reasonable inthe circumstances. On her return from the relocation

F

370

center, she discovered that it had been removed and shenever recovered it. Its fair value was $15'

4. Claimant worked in a beauty shop, but lost her job

soon after the outbreak of war. She notified the Cali-fornia State Unemployment Insurance Office of her un-employment and she was told that she would receive $16a week for 20 weeks ($320). She received about fourchecks before evacuation and one thereafter, but no more.She did not contest the matter of the stoppage of unem-ployment benefit payments.

5. The reasonable value of claimant's property at thetime of its sale for $110 was $333, with a resulting loss of$223, which together with the loss on the stored carpet,$15, makes a total loss of $238 not compensated for byinsurance or otherwise.

RDASONS TOR DECISION

The proposed adjudication was subrnitted to theJapanese-American Citizens League which filed a briefas anuicus curiae. The arguments there raised in respectto unemployment insurance benefits have been given care-ful consideration. Claimant was eligible to claim, as washer husband, and, her husband having signed a release ofall his interest in the community property, claimant mayunder local law claim for the whole. Tosluiko Usui, ante,p. 112. Her husband filed a claim, No. 146-BF-560, but onother property, and an avrard was made to him on Febru-ary 2, 1950.

On the facts found in paragraph 2, the loss is allowable.Toshi Shimomaye, ante, p. L.

On the facts found in paragraph 3, the loss is allowable.Akiko Yagi, ante, p. 11.

The claimant claimed $256 for loss of State unem-ployment insurance benefits. Claimant, who had beenemployed for some time prior to her evacuation, w&s re-ceiving unernployment insurance payments from the Stateof California which were terminated shortly after herevacuation, presurnably on the ground that she was no

longer available for work, continta condition upon which her right todepended. She seeks comPensatitunemployment paYments of which r

The money that claimant exPecher property, for the condit'ions ttitled her to receive it were neverbrought about a condition underdid not become due, such as mightreason of, e. g., her reemPloymenwould have been no thought' of lossdepend upon the sPeculative assunevacuation, she would have remtable and available for work througlshe might have received thebenefi'tments, obviously, were intended trvide her with the bare essentials cwas seeking gainful emPloYmenlfrom the Federal Government uPttion Center. AccordinglY, uPon tcould not have found gainful ention cost her nothing in resPect cLooked at realisticaliy, all that shthe opportunity, during the Perihave received such PaYments fronployment that would have Paid land more. PlainlY, loss of surcompensable under the Federal

r See the basic Californla Act of Junep. 7226, as amended. It will be unnecess

one of the amendeil sections. By an au

p. 21a6) a nen'section 57 was inserted in

vided that an employed person shall be e

lf a clairn las been made in accordance w

has registered for work and tbereafter cr

employment offiee or other approvecl plac"waiting period" of 2 weeks, has {luring

for employment by employers of not less

original 1935 law) :"(c) I{e is able to rvork and available

it had been rernoved and sher value was $15., beauty shop, but lost her jobI war. She notified the Cali-rt Insurance Office of her un-old that she would receive $16|0). She received about fourtd one thereafter, but no more.r,tter of the stoppage of unem-t.

of claimant's property at thes $333, with a resulting loss ofthe loss on the stored carpet,$238 not compensated for by

rOR DECISION

tion was submitted to thets League which filed a briefuments there raised in respectl benefits have been given ca.re-tt was eligible to claim, as wasand having signed a release ofLunity property, claimant mayre whole. Toshiko Usui, ante,elaim, No. 146-35-560, but onrd was made to him on Febru-

agraph 2, the loss is allowable.1.agraph 3, the loss is allowable.

i256 for ioss of State unem-bs. Claimant, who had beenior to her evacuation, was re-ra,nce pa,yments from the Stateterminated shortly after herthe ground that she was no

371

longer available for work, continued availability beinga condition upon which herright to receive such paymentsdepended. She seeks compensation for the loss of theunemployment payments of which she was thus deprived.'

The money that claimant expected to receive was nother property, for the conditions which would have en-titled her to receive it were never met. Her evacuationbrought about a condition under which such paymentsdid not become due, such as might well have occurred byreason of, e. g., her reemployment, in which case therewould have been no thought of loss. Claimant's case mustdepend upon the speculative assumption that, but for herevaeuation, she would have remained unemployed butable and available for work throughout the period in whichshe might have received the benefit payments. Such pay-ments, obviously, were intended to do no more than pro-vide her with the bare essentials of subsistence while shewas seeking gainful employment. Those she receivedfrom the Federa,l Government upon entering the Reloca-tion Center. Accordingly, upon the assumption that shecould not have found gainful employment, her evacua-tion cost her nothing in respect of her earning capacity.Looked at realisticaiiy, ali that she lost in this regard wasthe opportunity, during the period in which she mighthave received such payments from the Statg to seek em-ployment that would have paid her the amount thereofand more. Plainly, loss of such opportunity is notcompensable under the Federal Act, if for no other

I $ee the basic Californla Act of June 25, 1935, Stat. 1985, eh. 352,p.72'26, as amended. It will be unnecessary to notiee here more thanone of the amended seetions. By an amending Aet of 1939 (ch. 6?4,p.2146) a new section 57 was inserted in the California law whieh prcvided tiat an employed person shall be eltgible to receive beneflts onlylf a clain las been made in accordance with the regulations, the pe,rscnhas registered for work and thereafter continued to report at a publicemployment offce or other approved place, has been unemployed for a"waiting period" of 2 weeks, has during his base year earned wagegfor employment by employers of not less than 9300 anil (cf. g 51 of theoriginal 1935 law) :

"(c) I{e is able to rvork and available for work."

372

reason than that it forbids consideration of a claim forloss of "anticipated earnings." Cf. Takeshi Saku,rai, ante,p. 346.

ft was pointed out in the Sakurui, case, cwra, that theremay be compensable claims for losses of employment con-tracts. So, also, there might be situations in which lossesof rights to unemployment insurance benefits could becompensated. The test in either case would be the sa.me.Did the claimant, due to evacuation, lose "property" thathad either an actual or hypothetical market value? Un-like the claimant in that case, the present claimant can-not contend that any right of claim against the State waslost. Rather the contention here must be that claimantwas deprived of opportunity to acquire valid claimsagainst the State insofar as anticipated unemploymentbenefits are concerned. So far as we are informed, claim-ant's statutory rights in this regard were no different dur-ing and after the period of her exclusion than they hadbeen at the time it began. Uniike cases in which life in-surance policies lapsed due to the inability of claimants topay their premiums during the period of their exclusion,with the consequence that they were out of pocket inrespect of loading charges not fairly allocable as part of thecost of risk coverage already afforded, and which wouldhave to be paid again in order to acquire new insurance(see .ly'oboru Sumi, ante, p. 225), there was not, so far aswe are informed, any lapse in the limited protection a,f-forded by the State in respect of this elaimant's risks ofunemployment; and claimant was not required to payany money to maintain her position with reference tosuch rights that she would not have had to pay if she hadnot been evacuated, or if she had been ineligible to receivepayments during the period of her exclusion for otherrea,sons, e. g., illness.

It is true, of course, that a person quite naturally feelsthat he has lost something that he expected to obtain butdid not, e. g., expected commission on an anticipatedsale that fails due to a fluke, or an anticipated luxury item

that can not be bought becauseit has to be used to defray theAlthough such misadventures arefor by awarding damages againsting them, this is not the kind ofthe Federal Act, as shown byits legislative history. See MorThe claim for loss of the unemlments that claimant anticipatedfor t'loss of * * " personal proptof those words as used in that Anever gained a "property" rightthis item of claim must be denie

orbids consideration of a claim forrrnings." Cf.. Takeshi Saktnai,, ante,

m the Sa&zrai case, su?ra, that thereilaims for losses of employment con-e might be situations in which lossesryment insurance benefits could beest in either case would be the sa.me.l to evacuation, lose "property" thator hypothetical market value? Un-bhat case, the present claimant can-right of claim against the State wasrtention here must be that claimantrportunity to acquire valid claimssofar as anticipated unemploymentt. So far as we &re informed, claim-in this regard were no different dur-

riod of her exclusion than they hadegan. Ilnlike cases in which life in-d due to the inability of claimants toduring the period of their exclusion,e that they were out of pocket inrges not fairly allocable as part of thealready afforded, and which would

n in order to acquire new insurancente,p.225),therc was not, so far as

1 lapse in the limited protection af-in respect of this claimant's risks ofclaimant was not required to PaY

tain her position with reference torould not have had to pay if she had>r if she had been ineligible to receivee period of her exclusion for other

e, that a person quite naturally feelsrthing that he expected to obtain but:ted commission on an anticipateda fluke, or an anticipated luxury item

373

that can not be bought because the money set aside forit has to be used to defray the expense of an accident.Although such misadventures are sometimes compensatedfor by awarding damages against persons wrongfuliy caus-ing them, this is not the kind of relief that is afforded bythe Federal Act, as shown by both its language andits legislative history. See Mary Sogawa, onte, p. 126.The claim for loss of the unemployment, insurance pay-ments that claimant anticipated certainly is not a claimfor "loss of * * " personal property" within the meaningof those words as used in that Act because claimant hadnever gained a "property" right in them. Accordingly,this item of claim must be denied.