Supreme Court of the United States

Hercules, Inc. v. United States

March 4, 1996516 U.S. 417

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, affirmed the Federal Circuit on different grounds. The manufacturers could not recover their Agent Orange litigation expenses and settlement payments through an implied warranty of Government specifications or implied contractual indemnification. The specifications warranty protects contractual performance, not postperformance third-party liability, and the alleged contracting circumstances did not establish an implied-in-fact indemnity agreement. Section 707 of the Defense Production Act provides immunity rather than indemnification. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice O'Connor, dissented, arguing that the Federal Circuit's causation analysis improperly relied on hindsight and that further proceedings were necessary to determine whether the parties implicitly allocated the relevant risks to the Government. Justice Stevens did not participate.

Holding

  • Scope of Tucker Act jurisdiction over implied contractual obligations.. Tucker Act contract jurisdiction extends only to express and implied-in-fact contracts, and each material contractual obligation must satisfy that limitation.
  • Coverage of the implied warranty of Government specifications.. The manufacturers' specifications warranties did not extend to their postperformance costs of defending and settling third-party tort claims.
  • Existence of an implied-in-fact indemnification agreement with Thompson.. The alleged circumstances, accepted as true, did not establish an implied-in-fact Government agreement to indemnify Thompson for third-party liability.
  • Effect of section 707 of the Defense Production Act.. Section 707 provides immunity, not an agreement to indemnify contractors when liability is nevertheless imposed.

Docket 94-818

Cited authorities

Cited by