Deuley v. DynCorp International, Inc.
8 A.3d 1156
| Del. | 2010Background
- On August 29, 2004, a terrorist attack in Kabul killed CivPOL officers John Deuley and Gerald Gibson and seriously injured Joseph Dickinson, prompting wrongful death, survival, and personal injury claims against DynCorp entities.
- Officers were employees of DynCorp International FZ, LLC (Dubai); DynCorp defendants included DynCorp International Inc., DynCorp International LLC, and CSC Applied Technologies LLC, as general contractors for the CIVPOL mission.
- The Officers signed an Employment Agreement containing a liability provision releasing Employer and affiliates from liability for death, injury, or disability, in exchange for insurance benefits described in Attachment A.
- A Dubai choice-of-law clause in the contract stated the contract would be governed by Dubai law; the Superior Court dismissed the case based on the release language.
- The Delaware Supreme Court analyzed choice of law, UAE/Dubai law, and Delaware law to determine whether the release barred claims for wrongful death, survival, loss of consortium, and personal injury.
- The Court affirmed the Superior Court, concluding the liability clause is clear and unambiguous, creating a workers’ compensation–like risk shift that precludes negligence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Dubai law release cover negligence claims? | Deuley argues the language 'any claim' does not encompass negligence against DynCorp. | DynCorp argues the release is clear and broad, including negligence, and UAE law enforces it if advantageous to the worker. | Yes, the release covers negligence, under Dubai law. |
| What law governs the contract's release and its interpretation? | Choice of law should reflect the Workers’ Compensation framework of Delaware law. | Dubai law governs the contract per choice-of-law clause; conflicts are false or resolved by public policy. | Dubai law governs; no true conflict; court avoids alternative law analysis. |
| Do the wrongful death claims survive the release? | Wrongful death claims should survive if decedent could have pursued them; the release precludes this. | The release extinguishes any viable claims, including wrongful death, because it waives negligence claims pre-injury. | Surviving wrongful death claims are barred by the pre-injury release. |
| Do the survival claims survive the release? | Estate could pursue survival damages notwithstanding the release. | Release bars any survival claims since it fully satisfies any death-related claims against employer. | Survival claims are waived by the release. |
| Is Dickinson's loss of consortium claim viable after the release? | Loss of consortium survives only if there is a direct claim by the injured spouse against the tortfeasor. | Because Dickinson waived all claims in exchange for benefits, his wife's loss of consortium has no predicate claim. | Loss of consortium claims are barred by the release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake v. St. Francis Hosp., 560 A.2d 1059 (Del. 1989) (workers' compensation exclusivity and derivative nature of wrongful claims)
- Rafferty v. Hartman Walsh Painting Co., 760 A.2d 157 (Del.2000) (exclusive remedy bars negligence claims when workers' comp applies)
- Jones v. Elliott, 551 A.2d 62 (Del.1988) (loss of consortium is derivative and requires a direct injury assertion)
- Bozic (Hills Stores Co. v. Bozic), 769 A.2d 88 (Del.Ch.2000) (contractual releases and their effect under Delaware law)
- Alberici Constr. Co. v. Mid-West Conveyor Co., Inc., 750 A.2d 518 (Del.2000) (choice-of-law and contract interpretation in Delaware)
- Annan v. Wilmington Trust Co., 559 A.2d 1289 (Del.1989) (contract interpretation and intent of release language)