Howard Zeringue v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation
846 F.3d 785
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Howard Zeringue sued Crane Co. and others in state court for injuries from alleged asbestos exposure, asserting strict liability, negligence, and failure-to-warn claims. Crane removed under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
- Zeringue’s complaint alleges Navy exposure in the 1950s plus later civilian exposures but does not tie specific defendants, products, timeframes, or shipboard items to particular injuries.
- Crane manufactures parts (primarily valves) under Navy contracts and submitted sample military specifications and affidavits asserting that Navy specs governed materials (including asbestos) and required Navy acceptance before installation.
- Crane asserted a colorable federal defense of government-contractor immunity (Boyle test) and that it was a person “acting under” the Navy for § 1442 purposes.
- The district court remanded, finding Crane had not shown the government exercised discretion with respect to the specific design and warning issues implicated by Zeringue’s claims. Crane appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding Crane met § 1442’s requirements (person, colorable federal defense, acting under a federal officer, and causal nexus) and remanded for proceedings in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crane may remove under § 1442 | Zeringue: Crane failed to show government discretion over the specific design/warning at issue; removal improper | Crane: Removal proper because it acted under Navy contracts and raises a colorable government-contractor immunity defense | Held: Removal proper; Crane satisfied § 1442 requirements |
| Whether Crane’s federal defense is colorable (Boyle government-contractor immunity) | Zeringue: Military specs and affidavits are too attenuated and not specific to plaintiff’s exposures | Crane: Sample specs and affidavits show specs required asbestos for some parts and that Crane conformed and the Navy knew of asbestos risks | Held: Defense is colorable — evidence was non-frivolous and sufficient for removal (no need to win at removal stage) |
| Whether Crane was “acting under” a federal officer when exposures occurred | Zeringue: Crane did not show the requisite subordinate relationship or control over the acts causing injury | Crane: Supplying parts per Navy direction to assist ship construction satisfies “acting under” requirement | Held: Crane acted under the Navy — government direction/need to build parts suffices |
| Whether there is the required causal nexus between Crane’s actions and federal authority (“relating to”) | Zeringue: Nexus requires precise federal direction tying Navy discretion to the specific harms | Crane: Nexus satisfied because Crane’s relationship to plaintiff derived from its official duty to provide parts required by Navy specs | Held: Causal nexus satisfied; “relating to” is broad and does not demand precise direction |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (government-contractor immunity test for design-defect claims)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (§ 1442 causal nexus and broad removal doctrine)
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (scope of “acting under” and nonnarrow reading of § 1442)
- Jefferson Cty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (standard that federal defense need only be colorable for removal)
- Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (federal-question sourcing for § 1442 jurisdiction)
- Bartel v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 805 F.3d 169 (discussing limits of causal nexus where private conduct did not implicate federal interest)
- Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 817 F.3d 457 (Fifth Circuit on federal-officer removal standards)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (causal-nexus requirement and federal interest framing)
- Miller v. Diamond Shamrock Co., 275 F.3d 414 (acceptance and use as evidence of conformity to government specifications)