Fisher v. Halliburton

This interlocutory appeal arises out of the deaths of civilian drivers in a U.S. military supply-truck convoy in Iraq when insurgents attacked in April 2004. State tort claims were brought by or on behalf of spouses and family members of the decedents against the employers of the decedents. The district court found that the claims were not pre-empted by the Defense Base Act. All of the state law claims are barred by the DBA. If an employee's injury falls within the scope of the DBA's coverage as the result of a willful act of a third party directed against the employee because of his employment, the employee cannot proceed with an intentional-tort claim. The district court's order is vacated and the matter remanded with instructions to dismiss the state law claims. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-20202, 01-12-2012.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

This interlocutory appeal arises out of the deaths of Steven Fisher and Timothy Bell, who were civilian drivers in a United States military supply-truck convoy in Iraq when insurgents attacked in April 2004. State tort claims were brought by or on behalf of spouses and family members of the decedents (collectively Plaintiffs) against Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., and various subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively KBR), who employed the decedents. In this appeal, KBR contends that the district court erred in denying KBR’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in which it argued that the Defense Base Act (the DBA or Act)*fn1 provides Plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy and preempts all state tort claims that have been asserted. The district court certified its order regarding the DBA for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). KBR also seeks review of interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss that had asserted that this case concerns a political question and is non-justiciable and had asserted the government contractor defense and combatant activities exception. We conclude that the DBA preempts Plaintiffs’ claims, and we therefore do not consider whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the alternative grounds on which KBR seeks dismissal.

Fisher v. Halliburton

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to The Recorder