No Summary Judgment For WTC Defendants

A unanimous Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York correctly denied federal immunity summary judgment for New York City, a port authority and contractors for personal injury claims filed by emergency responders arising from alleged exposure to toxins during the removal of debris after the September 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center towers (In re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, No. 06-5324, 2nd Cir.).

The plaintiffs are hundreds of construction workers, firefighters, police officers and other responders who allege respiratory injuries from exposure to dust and fumes. They sued New York City, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, World Trade Center Properties and dozens of companies with whom New York City had contracts to remove the debris at the World Trade Center site.

The defense motion for summary judgment based on immunity under the New York emergency response statutes and common law and federal statutes and common law was denied by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in October 2006.

The panel said the New York defenses do not attach because they are defenses against liability rather than immunity from litigation and do not create a right of interlocutory appeal. It said it has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of denial of a Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288) derivative immunity summary judgment.

The panel affirmed the trial court judge’s conclusion that the evidence supporting the motion for summary judgment is insufficient to determine which decisions at the World Trade Center site were federally instructed decisions and which were made by the defendants. It also said the judge erred in concluding that derivative Stafford Act immunity does not exist as a matter of law but affirmed the decision to deny the defense motion for summary judgment.

“Defendants contend that the Stafford Act immunity should be derivatively extended to nonfederal responders to allow these entities to ‘seamlessly implement the discretionary decisions and instructions of federal experts and agencies,’” the panel said. “The district court’s resolution of the defendants’ asserted federal immunity is somewhat ambiguous. To the extent it held that Defendants are not entitled to immunity under the language of the Stafford Act, we agree. Defendants are not federal agencies within the statutory definition, nor are they employees of the federal government.”

Article from Legal News Post