Vance v. CHF International
914 F. Supp. 2d 669
D. Maryland2012Background
- Plaintiffs, personal representatives and wrongful death beneficiaries, sue CHF and URG for multiple tort claims arising from Mr. Vance's murder while on USAID-financed aid work in Pakistan's FATA.
- Cooperative Agreement funded by USAID required DBA insurance; CHF maintained DBA coverage for Vance who received DBA benefits after his death.
- CHF contracted with URG (Maryland-based) to consult on security for CHF personnel in Pakistan; URG Pakistan performed contract work, with UAE and Dubai elements in play.
- Plaintiffs allege CHF failed to provide adequate security; Vance and driver were killed on 11/12/2008 en route to CHF’s Peshawar office.
- Defendants move to dismiss: CHF—DBA exclusive remedy and lack of jurisdiction; URG—lack of personal jurisdiction; court holds both motions granted, plaintiffs’ motion denied.
- Court determines the DBA provides exclusive remedies for death claims under FAA-financed contracts performed outside the U.S., and dismisses Counts I–IV and VI and dismisses URG for lack of jurisdiction; Count V (intentional infliction of emotional distress) is dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DBA provide exclusive remedy for plaintiffs' claims? | DBA covers the workers’ death; exclusive remedy applies. | DBA exclusivity does not bar these claims in this context. | DBA exclusivity applies; Counts I–IV and VI dismissed. |
| Does § 1651(a)(5) apply to make the DBA the exclusive remedy? | Contract was FAA-financed and required DBA insurance; thus § 1651(a)(5) applies. | Financing alone does not determine applicability. | Yes, § 1651(a)(5) applies; DBA exclusive remedy applies. |
| Does § 1651(a)(4) apply by characterizing the contract as public work? | Project is humanitarian/development, not public works. | Project supports national defense; falls under public works. | Court finds public works within § 1651(a)(4); DBA exclusive remedy applies. |
| Is plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim viable? | CHF's security failures caused severe distress; claim should proceed. | DBA exclusivity and pleading deficiencies bar the claim; untimely and inadequately pleaded. | Count V dismissed; also barred as negligence covered by DBA; insufficient severe distress pleading. |
| Can the court exercise personal jurisdiction over URG? | UR G had Maryland-affiliated negotiations and payments; jurisdiction exists. | UR G Pakistan contract, no Maryland contacts; no jurisdiction. | Court grants URG's 12(b)(2) motion; no personal jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2012) (DBA exclusivity; narrow exception for intentional injury rejected)
- Ross v. DynCorp, 362 F. Supp. 2d 344 (D.D.C. 2005) (DBA exclusivity under FAA framework; displaces common-law remedies)
- Univ. of Rochester v. Hartman, 618 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1980) (public work concept under defense-related contracts)
- Makris v. Spensieri Painting, 669 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.P.R. 2009) (broad interpretation of public work under DBA context)
- Casey v. Chapman College, 23 BRBS 7 (1989) (public works concept and defense-related employment implications)