Date: 11-12-2024

Case Style:

Winston Tyler Hecely v. Fluor Corporation, et al.

Case Number: 6:19-CV-489

Judge: Bruce H. Hendricks

Court: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Richland County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Columbia Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Daniel L. Russell

Description:

Columbia, South Carolina personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on negligence theories.

The plaintiff, Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely, is a former soldier in the U.S. Army. In 2016, Hencely was stationed at Bagram Airfield, formerly the largest U.S. military base in Afghanistan, as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.
The defendant, Fluor Corporation, had a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide base life support services and theater transportation mission functions to U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, including at Bagram Airfield. These services included, among other things, construction, facilities management, laundry, food, recreation, and, relevant here, vehicle maintenance and hazardous materials management.

The suicide bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, was an Afghan national. He was employed by a Fluor subcontractor and worked the night shift at the hazardous materials section of the non-tactical vehicle yard at Bagram Airfield. Nayeb was hired pursuant to the “Afghan First” program. This program was part of the United States’ counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, with the goal of “developing the Afghan economy” and fostering a “moderate, stable, and representative Afghanistan capable of controlling and governing its territory.” J.A. 3041. One aspect of the program involved training and employing Afghans for “jobs being performed by contracted personnel, [Department of Defense] civilians, and even US military personnel.” J.A. 3042. In accordance with the Afghan First program, Fluor’s contract with the U.S. Government obligated it to hire Afghans—referred to as “Local Nationals” or “Host Nationals”—“to the maximum extent possible.” J.A. 3048 ¶ 01.07(b). Fluor subcontracted with a labor broker to hire Local Nationals, including Nayeb, to work at Bagram Airfield. The Army sponsored Nayeb’s hiring.

* * *
The bombing occurred early in the morning on November 12, 2016, a few hundred meters from the starting line for a Veterans Day 5K race at Bagram Airfield. Hencely and others observed Nayeb approaching and confronted him. Nayeb then detonated an explosive vest he was wearing under his clothes, killing himself and five others and severely wounding seventeen more, including Hencely. The Taliban took credit for the attack, claiming it had been planned for months.
After the bombing, the military conducted a formal investigation under Army Regulation 15-6, or “AR 15-6” for short. The military issued its AR 15-6 report on December 31, 2016. A heavily redacted version of that report was produced in this litigation.

* * *

The Army knew that Nayeb was a fomer Taliban member.

* * *

Three dispositive motions filed by Fluor are relevant to this appeal. First, Fluor moved to dismiss all of Hencely’s claims as nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine. The district court denied that motion and ordered discovery to proceed. See Hencely v. Fluor Corp., Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00489-BHH, 2020 WL 2838687 (D.S.C. June 1, 2020). Subsequently, Fluor moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding Hencely’s breach of contract claim. The district court granted that motion, agreeing with Fluor that Hencely is not a third-party beneficiary of LOGCAP IV or the related agreements. See Hencely v. Fluor Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00489-BHH, 2021 WL 3604781 (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2021). And finally, Fluor moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims, arguing that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “combatant activities” exception preempts the state tort laws undergirding those claims. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in Fluor’s favor. See Hencely v. Fluor Corp., 554 F. Supp. 3d 770 (D.S.C. 2021).

* * *

n the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), “Congress authorized damages to be recovered against the United States for harm caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of Government employees, to the extent that a private person would be liable under the law of the place where the conduct occurred.” Boyle v. United Tech. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 511 (1988); see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). It exempted from this consent to suit, however, “[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j). By their terms, these provisions do not apply to government contractors. 28 U.S.C. § 2671. Nevertheless, the combatant activities exception reflects an important federal policy of “foreclos[ing] state regulation of the military’s battlefield conduct and decisions.” Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d at 348 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Outcome: The federal government’s interest in preventing military policy and base security from being governed by the laws of fifty-one separate sovereigns is “obvious.” Saleh, 580 F.3d at 11. This significant federal interest preempts Hencely’s tort claims against Fluor arising out of its supervision of Local Nationals at Bagram Airfield under the military’s ultimate authority. As for Hencely’s contract claim, we have seen no indication that individual servicemen are entitled to sue for breach of the contracts between the U.S. Government and Fluor. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: