Chesney v. Tennessee Valley Authority
782 F. Supp. 2d 570
E.D. Tenn.2011Background
- Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash containment dike failed on December 22, 2008, spilling millions of cubic yards of coal ash into surrounding areas.
- Plaintiffs are nearby property owners asserting various tort and related claims against TVA, WorleyParsons, and Geosyntec.
- TVA engaged WorleyParsons (2004–2005) and Geosyntec (2004–2007) to provide engineering analyses and peer review relating to the KIF plant and coal ash disposal.
- This case is consolidated as a class action involving similar claims to other TVA spill cases, including prior Mays v. TVA precedents.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim, or, alternatively, for summary judgment, arguing derivative sovereign immunity under the discretionary function doctrine.
- The court held that WorleyParsons and Geosyntec are entitled to derivative sovereign immunity and dismissed them from the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WorleyParsons and Geosyntec have derivative sovereign immunity. | Chesney contends immunity does not extend to these contractors. | WorleyParsons/Geosyntec rely on Yearsley and related authorities to shield them. | Yes; derivative sovereign immunity applies under Yearsley. |
| Whether Boyle governs contractor defense in non-military context here. | Boyle should apply to limit immunity in non-military settings. | Boyle applies; contractor defense preempts state tort claims where applicable. | Court declines to extend Boyle to non-military public-works context; Yearsley controls. |
| Whether plaintiffs' nondiscretionary claims survive discretionary-function immunity. | Some alleged conduct falls outside TVA’s discretionary policy decisions. | WorleyParsons/Geosyntec engaged in areas protected by TVA’s discretionary decisions. | Nondiscretionary claims against the contractors do not survive; immunized by derivative immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yearsley, 309 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1940) (derivative immunity when contractor acts within authority to carry out government project)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (government contractor defense in uniquely federal interests; preemption of state tort duty under certain conditions)
- Ackerson v. Bean Dredging, LLC, 589 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 2009) (supports applicability of Yearsley derivative immunity outside strict agency relationship requirement)
- Bennett v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076 (6th Cir. 2010) (discusses Boyle defense and applicability beyond military contracts)
- Gulf Refining Co. v. Walker & Son Co., 124 F.2d 420 (6th Cir. 1942) (cites Yearsley; contractor immunity in public works context)
- Green v. ICI America, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 1263 (E.D. Tenn. 1973) (contractor immunity when government supervises project; related precedent for Yearsley lineage)
- Chattanooga & Tennessee River Power Co. v. Lawson, 201 S.W. 165 (Tenn. 1918) (contractor liability analyzed under government-commissioned improvement cases)