PENNINGTON v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
1:19-cv-00796
| D.D.C. | Jan 19, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs are estates and family members of U.S. servicemembers killed or wounded in sixteen terrorist attacks in Iraq; one surviving wounded servicemember (Adam Egli) also claims damages.
- The Court previously entered default judgment on liability against the Islamic Republic of Iran under the FSIA terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.
- Plaintiffs sought over $1 billion in damages across categories: solatium (familial emotional harms), direct/injury and economic losses for the surviving servicemember, estate economic losses, pain-and-suffering for certain estates, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.
- The Court applied controlling FSIA damages principles (notably Fraenkel and the Heiser ranges) and exercised discretion in awarding solatium and compensatory sums.
- The Court awarded $273,000,000 in total damages (including punitive damages equal to compensatory awards) but denied prejudgment interest and required additional clarifying economic evidence for some awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate solatium amounts for family members | Apply Heiser-based ranges (spouse $8M; parents $5M; siblings $2.5M; children $3M) and half-rates for families of injured survivors | Defaulted / no opposition | Court followed Heiser ranges generally, awarded specified amounts, reduced some awards where declarations were sparse (e.g., siblings $500K) and awarded reduced sums for infant children ($750K each) |
| Direct (non-economic) damages for surviving servicemember (Egli) | Substantial physical and psychological injuries justify large direct award (Plaintiffs sought $30M) | Defaulted / no opposition | Court awarded the $5M baseline commonly used in D.D.C. FSIA terrorism cases for substantial injuries |
| Economic-loss awards for Egli and for estates | Expert report estimates (Frankenfeld) provided quantified losses (~$1.46M for Egli; various sums for estates) | Defaulted / no opposition | Court found expert analyses insufficiently explained (pre/post-tax, personal-consumption assumptions, pension-option info) and gave leave to clarify before awarding economic losses |
| Pain-and-suffering for estates of decedents who survived briefly after attack | Plaintiffs sought $18M each for two estates | Defaulted / no opposition | Court awarded $1M to Joseph Richard's estate (survived ~75 minutes); denied award for Jason Merrill (no evidence of consciousness/awareness); rejected blanket large awards absent supporting evidence |
| Prejudgment interest on solatium/direct awards | Plaintiffs requested prejudgment interest | Defaulted / no opposition | Denied: court found compensatory awards were intended to be fully compensatory, so prejudgment interest unnecessary |
| Punitive damages (multiplier requested by plaintiffs) | Plaintiffs sought punitive damages equal to a multiplier (3.44x) of compensatory | Defaulted / no opposition | Court found punitive appropriate but set punitive equal to compensatory (1x), awarding $136.5M in punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 892 F.3d 348 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (FSIA terrorism damages standards and solatium guidance)
- Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (factors for solatium awards and relationship-based considerations)
- Estate of Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006) (benchmarks for solatium award ranges)
- Wultz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 864 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2012) (baseline approach to direct-injury awards and full-compensation reasoning)
- Murphy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2010) (economic-loss recoverability and methodology)
- O'Brien v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 853 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2012) (factors for direct-injury damages)
- Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) (pain-and-suffering awards for short survival after injury)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (Supreme Court guideposts for reviewing punitive damages)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (purpose of punitive damages and related considerations)