Supreme Court Considers Contractor Liability for Wartime Negligence

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a significant case regarding contractor liability for wartime negligence. The case centers on the actions of Fluor Corp., a military contractor accused of negligence related to a tragic bombing incident at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in 2016.

Case Overview: Hencely v. Fluor

Former Army Specialist Winston Hencely has brought a lawsuit against Fluor Corp. He claims the contractor is liable under state law after an employee, Ahmad Nayeb, orchestrated a suicide bomb attack resulting in the deaths of five individuals, including three U.S. soldiers and two contractor staff members. The bombing injured another 17 people.

Details of the Incident

• Date: November 12, 2016
• Location: Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan
• Casualties:
  • 3 U.S. soldiers: Pfc. Tyler Iubelt, Staff Sgt. John Perry, Sgt. 1st Class Allan Brown
  • 2 Fluor contractors: Peter Provost and retired Army Col. Jarrold Reeves
• Injuries: 17 others were injured in the blast.

During the investigation, the U.S. Army discovered that Fluor violated its contractual obligations. They found that the tools used by Nayeb to build the bomb were provided by Fluor, and there was a failure to monitor his actions on base.

Legal Arguments Presented

Hencely’s attorney, Frank Chang, argued that Fluor’s negligence warrants litigation, claiming that the contractor failed to meet its federal contract specifications. He emphasized that the legal grounds to hold Fluor accountable are supported by congressional decisions and past court rulings.

However, Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism regarding the applicability of state tort claims against contractors like Fluor. Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the military’s responsibility for base safety, asserting that the military had oversight of personnel movements and security measures.

Arguments on Contractor Immunity

Fluor’s legal team contended that the U.S. Constitution limits state-level lawsuits against contractors engaged in combat operations. They argued that allowing such claims could lead to operational disruptions and hinder the immediate response needed during emergencies.

Three retired senior military officials filed a brief supporting Fluor, stating that exposing contractors to lawsuits could generate confusion and reduce accountability on the battlefield.

Implications of the Case

The decision from the Supreme Court, expected early next year, will provide clarity on contractor liability for wartime negligence. This case could set significant precedents affecting contractors operating in combat zones. The outcome may influence how military contractors manage their responsibilities and ensure compliance with safety protocols.

Hencely’s case remains on hold pending this ruling, which could reshape the landscape for future legal claims against military contractors.