In the Matter of the FORT TOTTEN METRORAIL CASES ARISING OUT OF the EVENTS OF JUNE 22, 2009
895 F. Supp. 2d 48
D.D.C.2012Background
- This is a DC District Court Amended Memorandum Opinion addressing seven dispositive motions in Fort Totten Metrorail collision cases (June 22, 2009).
- Plaintiffs seek damages for deaths and injuries from WMATA train collision; WMATA cross-claims against Alstom for contribution and contractual indemnity.
- Two WMATA replacement components were involved: Alstom modules paired with Ansaldo impedance bonds on Circuit B2-304; parasitic oscillation allegedly caused misdetection.
- Alstom, Ansaldo, ARINC, and WMATA seek summary judgment/12(b)(1) rulings on various theories including statute of repose, indemnity, and sovereign-immunity defenses.
- Court holds: WMATA’s contract-based indemnity claim falls under contract exception to the statute of repose; WMATA’s contribution claim does not; District government (nullum tempus) exception applies to WMATA only if public rights are vindicated; WMATA’s equitable indemnity claims are dismissed for lack of waiver; corporate defendants’ summary-judgment requests largely denied; ARINC’s summary judgment partly granted/denied; Alstom’s claims survive in part as manufacturer/ seller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the statute of repose bar WMATA’s cross-claims against Alstom? | WMATA cross-claims fit §12-310(b)(1) contract and §12-310(b)(4) District government exemptions. | WMATA asserts both contract-based and District government exemptions apply. | Contract-based indemnity exempt; contribution not exempt; District government exemption not applicable to WMATA cross-claim. |
| Whether WMATA’s equitable indemnification cross-claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Cross-claimants seek equitable indemnity arising from torts; waivers exist only for contracts or proprietary torts. | Interstate WMATA compact waives immunity for certain claims; equitable indemnity should be covered. | WMATA has not waived sovereign immunity for equitable indemnification; cross-claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does Ansaldo have derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley? | Ansaldo argues immunity because its work followed WMATA’s directives. | Ansaldo seeks derivative immunity for actions under federal direction. | Derivate immunity does not apply to Ansaldo; claims hinge on Ansaldo’s negligent/contractual conduct, not WMATA’s immune decision. |
| Is ARINC entitled to Boyle government contractor defense? | ARINC argues uniquely federal interests justify defense. | ARINC contract with WMATA—not federal government—undermines Boyle defense. | Boyle defense not applicable; federal interests not shown; ARINC cannot rely on Boyle. |
| Is Ansaldo entitled to summary judgment on all counts? | Ansaldo’s actions were protected by sovereign immunity and lack of causation. | Contractual duties and testing obligations create liability questions for a jury. | Ansaldo denied summary judgment on key claims; issues of causation and duty remain for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. DC, 572 A.2d 394 (D.C. 1989) (nullum tempus and public rights immunity analyzed in public-fiscal actions)
- Majeska v. District of Columbia, 812 A.2d 948 (D.C. 2002) (proximate causation and superseding causation ordinarily fact questions for jury)
- Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1940) (derivative sovereign immunity limits for government-directed contractors)
- Watters v. WMATA, 295 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (sovereign immunity, WMATA compact, and waiver limits; treatment of WMATA as government entity vary by context)
- Beebe v. WMATA, 129 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (strict interpretation of sovereign immunity waivers under WMATA compact)