A recent lawsuit brought by a group of Indiana National Guardsman spotlights a controversial legal doctrine that prevents soldiers on active duty from seeking compensation for injuries sustained in war zones.

The guardsman allege that a mission to help clean up a water treatment plant in southern Iraq left them with what they say are potentially fatal illnesses.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Indiana, the Guardsmen allege that oil company KBR Inc. “disregarded and downplayed” the fact that the site at Qarmat Ali was coated with the hazardous chemical sodium dichromate. They were exposed, they say, to the chemical that is used as an industrial anti-corrosive agent to protect pipes.

As a result, the soldiers suffered “unprotected, unknowing, direct exposure to one of the most potent carcinogens and mutagenic substances known to man,” alleges the suit, which seeks monetary compensation for health problems the soldiers say they have suffered.

KBR has said in court filings that it was carrying out the duties in its contract. It says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was obligated to provide it with an environmentally safe area for its work. Besides, the company says, Army medical tests have shown no soldiers were harmed. The company also says that once the chemical was discovered, the company worked to make the area safe.

A spokesman for the U.S. Army says it cannot comment on the suit because it is pending.

The suit and similar ones filed separately against KBR highlight the challenges of soldiers seeking compensation from the courts for war-zone incidents. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as the “Feres doctrine” bars soldiers in active duty from filing suits against the federal government. The military gives soldiers free medical treatment and stipends in some instances, the reasoning goes, so they are duly compensated for whatever befalls them on the battlefield.

Many of the suits that stem from actions on the battlefield are directed at third parties, specifically contractors whom the military increasingly rely on. But contractors too are immune from suits if they can successfully prove they have lived up to the specifications in their government contracts.

As a general rule, third parties have been successful in warding off big rewards from battlefield litigation. For instance, U.S. soldiers in the Vietnam War who said they suffered from symptoms related to the usage of Agent Orange, a toxic defoliant the military used in the war, sued the chemical companies that manufactured it. Suits seeking-class action status were first filed in the late 1970s and settled after about six years of legal wrangling. Under the settlement, only a handful of litigants were eligible for relatively meager compensation.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:09-cv-69

Download the full West Virginia KBR Complaint

DALE GALLAHER; ROBERT WILSON;
RUSSELL POWELL; ANDRU KELLER;
ERIC HEID; JOHN HEADLEY;
and BRADLEY EBERT,
Plaintiffs

vs.

KBR, INC.; KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC.;
KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.;
OVERSEASADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD.;
and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, and for their Complaint against the Defendants, state and aver as follows:

Plaintiffs, Dale Gallaher, Robert Wilson, Russell Powell, Andru Keller, Eric Heid, John Headley, and Bradley Ebert (together, “West Virginia Guardsmen”) file this Complaint against Defendants, KBR, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD., AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“together, “KBR”), and would respectfully show the following:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1.
KBR, a private company, and its operating subsidiaries (including Cayman Island subsidiaries set up by KBR for various purposes described further below) received billions of  dollars of no-bid contracts for work in Iraq in 2003. This suit arises from one of the projects KBR was charged with safely completing, a project involving the restoration of the Qarmat Ali water plant in southern Iraq so the facility could resume pumping water down into the Iraqi oil wells for more consistent oil flow. After major combat operations ceased in southern Iraq, KBR, a self-proclaimed expert in overseas infrastructure projects, was responsible at Qarmat Ali for proper site survey before and as work progressed. For allegedly timely completing the Qarmat Ali project, KBR received not only base contract payments but also retrospective “award” payments after Qarmat Ali was back on line.

Download the full West Virginia KBR Complaint

Indiana Complaint