Hinton v. Combined Systems, Inc.
105 F. Supp. 3d 16
D.D.C.2015Background
- Daniel Hinton, an FBI Special Agent, was injured when a flash-bang device manufactured by Combined Systems detonated during handling in an FBI facility.
- Combined Systems sold the devices to the FBI under a procurement contract; CSI offered training but the FBI declined and said it would train its personnel.
- Hinton sued Combined Systems for strict liability and negligence; Combined Systems filed a third-party complaint against the FBI seeking indemnification and contribution.
- The FBI moved to dismiss Combined Systems’ First Amended Third-Party Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- Combined Systems pleaded four counts against the FBI: breach of express contract (as basis for indemnity), breach of implied contract (as basis for indemnity), common-law indemnity, and contribution.
- The District Court dismissed the entire Third-Party Complaint, finding the indemnity and contribution claims not viable under D.C. law and thus beyond the waiver of sovereign immunity in the FTCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Combined Systems can obtain contribution from the FBI for Hinton’s injury | Contribution available because FBI’s alleged failure to train contributed to Hinton’s injury | FECA’s exclusivity precludes employee’s suit against the United States, so no joint tortfeasor liability and no contribution under D.C. law | Dismissed — contribution barred because FECA prevents a direct tort suit by the employee against the FBI, so no contribution claim under D.C. law |
| Whether an express contractual indemnity exists between FBI and Combined Systems | Contract terms and FBI’s oral representation that it would train created an express indemnity obligation | No language (oral or written) shows FBI expressly accepted legal liability to indemnify CSI | Dismissed — no express contractual indemnity alleged |
| Whether implied-in-law (equitable) indemnity is available | Indemnity appropriate because FBI’s active conduct caused the injury while CSI was passive | D.C. courts reject the active/passive theory in this context; FECA/exclusive remedy forecloses such indemnity | Dismissed — implied-in-law indemnity unavailable under D.C. precedent |
| Whether implied-in-fact (implied contractual) indemnity exists based on FBI’s promise to provide training | FBI’s representation and the parties’ dealings created a special relationship giving rise to an implied duty to indemnify | The transaction was a one-time sale; no ongoing special legal relationship like bailor/bailee, lessor/lessee, principal/agent | Dismissed — no special relationship alleged to support implied-in-fact indemnity under D.C. law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190 (FTCA waiver requires reference to governing substantive law; FECA exclusivity does not directly bar third-party indemnity but limits it)
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States, 937 F.2d 625 (third-party contribution/indemnity analyzed under underlying substantive law; no contribution against party with statutory immunity)
- George Washington Univ. v. Bier, 946 A.2d 372 (D.C. law on contribution principles)
- Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., 565 A.2d 293 (D.C. Court of Appeals: employer covered by exclusive remedy cannot be treated as joint tortfeasor; limits on indemnity and contribution)
- Quadrangle Dev. Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 748 A.2d 432 (D.C. law distinguishing implied-in-law and implied-in-fact indemnity; special-relationship requirement)
- E. Penn Mfg. Co. v. Pineda, 578 A.2d 1113 (discussion of equitable indemnity doctrines under D.C. law)
- Howard Univ. v. Good Food Servs., Inc., 608 A.2d 116 (example where ongoing contractual relationship supported implied-in-fact indemnity)
- Eubank v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 626 F.3d 424 (third-party cannot assert contribution where employee has no actionable claim against the United States)