Eubank Ex Rel. Eubank v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24342
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Eubanks sue KCP&L in Missouri state court for damages from David Eubank's death due to an arc flash at the Hardesty complex where KCP&L supplied electricity.
- KCP&L brings a third-party indemnity and contribution petition against David Eubank's GSA supervisors; United States substitutes as third-party defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) and removal to federal court occurs.
- District court held FTCA sovereign immunity barred the third-party petition and dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Eubanks' FECA benefits were awarded retroactively.
- The Eubanks' FECA-only remedy generally bars negligence claims against the United States for the work-related injury/death.
- KCP&L appeals, arguing Missouri law allows an indemnity/contribution claim based on an independent duty by the government to KCP&L.
- Court affirms district court, concluding no independent duty comparable to Missouri product-liability or McDonnell exception exists, and FECA immunity bars indemnity and contribution claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indemnity viability under FECA | Eubanks have FECA benefits, so no actionable negligence against US exists. | Missouri allows implied indemnity despite FECA under an independent-duty theory. | Indemnity barred; no independent-duty basis under Missouri law. |
| Independent-duty exception scope | McDonnell-like independent duty could permit indemnity against the United States. | No independent duty from government to KCP&L; FECA precludes indemnity. | No independent-duty trigger comparable to Coello/McDonnell here. |
| Contribution against United States | Knowles allows FTCA substitution to permit contribution as US liability mirrors employee liability. | FECA exclusivity and lack of underlying private-negligence claim foreclose contribution. | Contribution claims barred; FECA immunity forecloses underlying liability. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction after FTCA substitution | FTCA substitution preserves jurisdiction for indemnity/contribution under state law. | FECA precludes underlying negligence and thereby bar federal jurisdiction over third-party petition. | District court correctly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Acres Enters., Inc. v. United States, 418 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005) (FTCA liability framework and jurisdiction guidance)
- McDonnell Aircraft Corp. v. Hartman-Hanks-Walsh Painting Co., 323 S.W.2d 788 (Mo. 1959) (independent-duty indemnity exception discussed in Missouri law)
- Parks v. Union Carbide Corp., 602 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. 1980) (contractual indemnity requirement for third-party indemnity claims)
- State ex rel. Maryland Heights Concrete Contractors, Inc. v. Ferriss, 588 S.W.2d 489 (Mo. 1979) (McDonnell exception limited to express agreements; narrowing indemnity scope)
- Knowles v. United States, 91 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 1996) (FTCA substitution liability mirrors employee liability defenses)
- St. John v. United States, 240 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2001) (FTCA liability framework under respondeat superior influence)
- Coello v. Tug Manufacturing Corp., 756 F. Supp. 1258 (W.D. Mo. 1991) (independent duties may arise without express indemnity agreement)
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States, 937 F.2d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (duty to government employees vs. third-party obligations)
- U.S. Elevator Corp. v. Fru-Con Constr. Corp., 890 F.2d 1046 (8th Cir. 1989) (discussion of indemnity and indemnity scope in FTCA context)