KBR Won’t Face Trial in Convoy Driver Deaths, Court Rules
KBR Inc. (KBR) and its former corporate parent, Halliburton Co. (HAL), won’t face a jury on claims they sent unarmed civilian convoy drivers into an Iraqi battle zone in 2004, knowing the workers would be injured or killed, an appeals court ruled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans today ruled the drivers’ claims were blocked by the Defense Base Act, a U.S. law that shields military contractors from lawsuits. The drivers were attacked and injured because of their role in support operations for the U.S. Army, which is covered under that statute, the judges said.
“Coverage of an injury under the DBA precludes an employee from recovering from his employer,” even if the worker claims the company was “substantially certain” the injuries would occur, U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla R. Owen said in a 30-page ruling by the panel.
KBR, a Houston-based government contractor, was sued in 2005 by the families of seven drivers killed while working in Iraq for the largest U.S. military contractor. The company appealed a 2010 lower-court ruling that jurors could weigh the companies’ actions without second-guessing the actions of the Army.
Unarmed Civilians
U.S. District Judge Gray Miller, who presided over the case in Houston federal court, refused to dismiss Halliburton, which spun off KBR as a separate company in 2007. Miller also ruled that the companies couldn’t name the military as a co-defendant in the lawsuits, so the Army wasn’t required to defend its actions.
The drivers and their families claimed KBR officials fraudulently recruited workers for safe jobs in Iraq and intentionally sent unarmed civilians into a recognized combat zone in April 2004. KBR’s military-supply contract gave company officials the right to refuse assignments deemed too dangerous for civilians, according to the complaints.
KBR and Halliburton argued that they weren’t liable because they couldn’t refuse Army orders to dispatch the fuel convoys under terms of their multibillion-dollar supply contract with the U.S. military. The convoys were attacked at a time when Iraqi insurgents were escalating the fight against U.S. troops that had taken over the country to oust dictator Saddam Hussein.
‘Complete Control’
Scott Allen, the drivers’ lead attorney, said in an e-mail that he was saddened by the ruling and may discuss appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court with families of the dead and injured men.
“It was KBR, and not the Army, who had complete control over their civilian drivers that day,” Allen said, citing a factual finding by the lower-court judge in the case. “Any legal ruling that permits a private for-profit contractor to send civilian, noncombatant drivers out into the line of fire is contrary to the very nature of the civilian employee status of the drivers and the private contractor’s relationship with them.”
“KBR knew the attackers were on the road and had already attacked other convoys that day, yet they sent my clients out into the same ongoing attack,” Allen said.
Sarah Ui Mhuirgheasa, a KBR spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on today’s ruling.
“Although Halliburton is named in the lawsuit, the activity involved was pursuant to a KBR contract,” Marisol Espinosa, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said today in an e-mail.
In late December, KBR reached a confidential settlement with another convoy driver, Reginald Cecil Lane, who sued over severe injuries he received in the same series of Iraqi attacks. That settlement was disclosed in a Jan. 9 court filing by Lane’s attorney, who declined to reveal its terms.
The case is Fisher v. Halliburton, 10-20202, U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans).
To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Cronin Fisk in Detroit at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.
Rate this Page