(Editor’s Note.  In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. the Supreme Court announced that contractors who produce military equipment for the federal government are immune from lawsuits under state tort laws for damages caused by a “defective design” as long as the equipment conformed to government specifications and the contractor warned the government of any known dangers.  It has been a big question whether this so-called “government contractor defense” established by Boyle in 1988 applied to federal contractors who provide services.  The following helps answer that question.)

It had been known that a part (“fin spar”) on the of the UH-1 or “Huey” helicopter had caused the tailfin to separate and crash, severely injuring two Army pilots.  In spite of a recommended regular inspection regime, the maintenance contractor for the Huey, at the Army’s direction, did not conduct the fin spar inspection.  The pilots sued the maintenance contractor, alleging the contractor had failed to properly maintain the helicopter.  In spite of the pilots’ assertions the government contractor defense applies only to procurement contracts for equipment the Courts that heard the case ruled the defense applies to service contracts also.

A commentator in the case in the June issue of the Procurement Law Advisor states the case represents an important liability protection for service contractors against tort-based lawsuits for damages.  When combined with existing case law, the case holds the government contractor defense applies to non-military contract service contractors.  As the Court restated a successful use of the government contractor defense is contingent on the contractor providing three elements: (1) the government approved “reasonably precise” procedures for how the service is to be performed (2) the service contractor performed the service in conformance with the government’s procedures and (3) the service contractor warned the government about any dangers in reliance on the procedures that were known to the contractor but not the government (Hudgens v. Bell Helicopters/Textron F.3d, 2003 WL 1955173).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}