Stanford v. United States
948 F. Supp. 2d 729
E.D. Ky.2013Background
- BADD is a Kentucky area development district created by statute and treated as a public agency; it seeks summary judgment on state sovereign immunity in a FTCA-related case.
- The FTCA actions treat Kentucky-law tort claims against the United States as to be analyzed under Kentucky law; BADD may be immune if it is an arm of state government and integral to state functions.
- Stanford, a Cadet Corps instructor, was severely injured on an obstacle course zip line at the Harold L. Disney Training Center, a federal site in Kentucky; he sues the United States under the FTCA for negligence.
- The United States filed third-party indemnity, apportionment, and contribution claims against Cadet Corps, Land, Gorman, and BADD; crossclaims and counterclaims followed against BADD.
- BADD argued for sovereign immunity and, in the alternative, argued that indemnity or apportionment claims fail as a matter of law; the court denied immunity on the second prong and granted judgment on indemnity but allowed contribution/apportionment claims to proceed.
- The court concluded BADD is not entitled to sovereign immunity because it does not predominantly serve state-level concerns nor perform an integral state-government function; it primarily provides advisory support to local governments.
- Indemnity claims against BADD were dismissed; contribution claims remain viable, and apportionment claims may be pursued because BADD is a party to the action under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BADD is entitled to state sovereign immunity under Comair. | United States contends BADD serves a state function. | BADD argues it primarily serves local concerns and is not integral to state government. | No; sovereign immunity denied to BADD. |
| Whether indemnity claims against BADD are viable. | Indemnity rests on one tortfeasor being the active wrongdoer; BADD allegedly more culpable. | BADD claims the allegations show no categorical greater fault by BADD. | Indemnity claims against BADD granted; not viable. |
| Whether contribution claims against BADD survive. | Contribution is a separate Kentucky remedy for joint fault. | BADD asserts contributions may be pursued under Kentucky law. | Contribution claims survive. |
| Whether apportionment claims under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182 are available against BADD. | Third-party claims and apportionment may proceed among multiple tortfeasors. | There is no independent apportionment claim; but fault can be apportioned via contribution. | Apportionment claims denied as independent remedy but fault can be apportioned under contribution framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91 (Ky.2009) (two-step test for sovereign immunity: origin and integral to state government)
- Cloyd v. Northern Kentucky Area Planning Comm’n, 332 S.W.3d 91 (Ky.Ct.App.2010) (balances local vs. state concerns; planning commission immunity; licenses and inspections weigh strongly)
- Berns v. Kentucky Center for the Arts, 801 S.W.2d 327 (Ky.1990) (funding power alone does not confer immunity; local economic-promotional functions may be local concerns)
- Degener v. Hall Contracting Corp., 27 S.W.3d 775 (Ky.2000) (defining indemnity, contribution, apportionment; distinctions among doctrines)
- Crime Fighters Patrol v. Hiles, 740 S.W.2d 936 (Ky.1987) (indemnity requires a qualitative difference in fault; in pari delicto considerations)
- Adam v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 130 F.3d 219 (6th Cir.1997) (treats third-party defendants as parties for apportionment under Ky. § 411.182)
- Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 177 S.W.3d 797 (Ky.2005) (discussion of apportionment and fault sharing in Kentucky)
- Hill v. United States, 453 F.2d 839 (6th Cir.1972) (treating FTCA claims as derivative of state-law liability)