Home > Legal Library > Article

Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected

Trade Group Seeks Greater Legal Protections For Contractors Operating In War Zones

Daniel J. Davis
Proskauer Rose LLP - Washington Office

February 18, 2014

Previously published on February 14, 2014

Earlier this week, the Professional Services Council filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of a writ of certiorari of a Third Circuit decision regarding contractor immunity in war zones.  The case involves a wrongful death suit by the estate of a member of the military who was accidentally electrocuted in Iraq while taking a shower in his barracks.

The Third Circuit, in Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., found that the combatant activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act did not preempt plaintiff’s claim.  724 F.3d 458, 462 (3d Cir. 2013).  The Third Circuit also denied many of the contractor’s arguments regarding the political question doctrine and remanded other questions about the political question doctrine for further proceedings in district court.  The contractor is seeking review of the Third Circuit’s decision.

The amicus brief filed by the Professional Services Corporation raises a valuable point to consider in cases involving government contractors:  pursuant to FAR 52.228-7, contractors with cost-reimbursement contracts have the right to reimbursement for negligence claims brought against contractors.  Thus, as the brief points out, the net effect of a successful claim against the contractor will result in the government paying for the claim.  That result could not occur had the government been found negligent, because the government is protected by sovereign immunity.

The amicus brief highlights one aspect of the various and complex doctrines that may apply when federal contractors are sued under state law for work performed as part of their government contract.  Depending on the type of contract, the type of work being performed, and the nature of the state law claim, a number of immunities and federal defenses may apply.


The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

View More Library Documents By...

Practice Area
Labor & Employment
Proskauer Rose LLP Overview