Alan Metzgar v. KBR, Incorporated
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4188
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Servicemembers (plaintiffs), mostly U.S. military personnel, sued KBR and related contractors for alleged injuries from burn-pit smoke and contaminated water at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, asserting state tort and contract claims (negligence, nuisance, wrongful death, breach of contract, etc.).
- KBR performed waste disposal and water-treatment functions under the Army’s LOGCAP III contract through task orders and statements of work. Plaintiffs allege KBR burned prohibited materials in open-air burn pits and failed to ensure proper water treatment/testing.
- MDL consolidation occurred in the District of Maryland. KBR moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), invoking the political question doctrine, derivative sovereign immunity (Yearsley/FTCA discretionary-function reasoning), and preemption via the FTCA combatant activities exception.
- The district court initially denied dismissal without discovery, then later granted dismissal (Burn Pit II) before jurisdictional discovery, relying on Taylor, Filarsky, and government amicus positions.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded: it held the record was factually insufficient to resolve (1) whether military control made claims nonjusticiable under the Taylor political-question test; (2) whether KBR was entitled to derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley; and (3) whether the combatant-activities exception preempted state tort law under the Saleh/Johnson framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political-question doctrine (Taylor factors) — whether claims are nonjusticiable | Plaintiffs: KBR, not military, often controlled how burn pits/water tasks were performed; therefore courts can adjudicate claims. | KBR: military control over method/location of burn pits and water oversight, and national-defense interests, make claims nonjusticiable. | Vacated dismissal — existing record insufficient to resolve military-control and national-defense integration; political-question dismissal premature. |
| Derivative sovereign immunity/FTCA discretionary-function — whether KBR is immune under Yearsley | Plaintiffs: KBR exceeded LOGCAP III/task orders and applicable directives; Yearsley immunity therefore inapplicable. | KBR: performing government-authorized wartime services; derivative immunity applies (and FTCA exceptions would protect government). | Vacated dismissal — factual record does not establish that KBR acted strictly within contract scope; Yearsley immunity cannot be resolved pre-discovery. |
| Combatant-activities exception / preemption (Boyle framework) — whether federal interest preempts state tort claims | Plaintiffs: state tort law applies; any preemption requires a developed record showing military command integration. | KBR: activities were combatant-related and integrated with military command, so FTCA §2680(j) preempts state tort claims. | Vacated dismissal — court adopts Saleh/Johnson approach but finds record insufficient to determine whether KBR was sufficiently integrated into military command to trigger preemption; remand for discovery. |
| Standard/test for preemption — which test governs (Saleh vs. US amicus test) | Plaintiffs: prefer narrower approach focused on command integration and actual control. | KBR/United States: urged broader test (preempt when similar FTCA claim against U.S. would fall within §2680(j) and contractor acted within contract scope). | Court adopts Saleh/Johnson approach: preemption only when contractor is integrated into combatant activities under military command; rejects broader government-proposed test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988) (federal-interest/preemption framework for military-contractor suits)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (political-question doctrine factors)
- Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2011) (two-factor test for political-question analysis in contractor context)
- Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012) (qualified-immunity principles for private actors assisting government employees)
- Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940) (derivative sovereign-immunity doctrine for contractors acting under valid government authority)
- Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (preemption test: contractor integrated into combatant activities under military command)
- Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 724 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2013) (adopts intermediate test: §2680(j) aims to foreclose state regulation of battlefield decisions)
- Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2009) (plenary military control can render contractor suits nonjusticiable)
- Butters v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 225 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2000) (recognizing derivative sovereign immunity rooted in Yearsley)