Ingrid Fisher v. Halliburton
667 F.3d 602
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Deaths of two Halliburton/KBR drivers in an Iraqi convoy attack on April 9, 2004; spouses and family members sue KBR in state tort actions.
- District court denied KBR's Rule 12(b)(1)/summary judgment when asserting the Defense Base Act (DBA) preempts the state-law claims.
- Case was consolidated with Lane v. Halliburton; Lane plaintiffs settled, Fisher claims remained pending.
- DBA governs workers’ compensation for injuries to employees under U.S. contracts abroad, potentially excluding tort claims.
- Court held the DBA preempts the plaintiffs’ state-law claims and affirmed dismissal/remand of related interlocutory issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the DBA preempt state-law tort claims here? | Fisher argues DBA coverage excludes state tort recovery. | KBR contends DBA exclusive remedy bars all claims. | Yes, the DBA preempts the state claims. |
| Should the district court have treated the motion as summary judgment rather than 12(b)(1)? | Issues of coverage turn on fact questions; district court mislabeled | Preemption is an affirmative defense; proper vehicle is summary judgment | The denial reviewed as summary judgment is proper. |
| Can plaintiffs pursue intentional tort claims against KBR under a theory of employer conduct despite DBA coverage? | Employer’s intentional acts or substantial certainty theory could fall outside DBA | DBA exclusivity bars such non-third-party intentional-tort theories | No; substantial-certainty/intentional-tort claims are barred when DBA coverage applies. |
| Do the DBA’s coverage provisions also bar plaintiffs’ fraud claims? | Fraud claims were premised on deception before compensable injury; not recoverable | Deceit that precedes compensable injury merges into injury; still barred | Yes; fraud claims are barred when injuries fall within the DBA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (DBA preemption in related litigation; discussed coverage and preemption scope)
- Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v. Landy, 370 F.2d 46 (9th Cir. 1966) (DBA/LHWCA exclusivity interpretation; sole remedy principle)
- Johnson v. Odeco Oil & Gas Co., 864 F.2d 40 (5th Cir. 1989) (LHWCA preemption; employer liability exception context)
- Tanks v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 417 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2005) (undisputed facts; intent and causation in preemption analyses)
- Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (reiterates jurisdictional and preemption framework under DBA)