descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

GROSSHANDELS-UND LAGEREI-BERUFSGENOSSENSCHAFT, BERUFSGENOSSENSCHAFT DER CHEMISCHEN INDUSTRIE, BUNDESVERSICHERUNGSANSTALT, FÜR ANGESTELLTE, AND VERWALTUNGSBERUFSGENOSSENSCHAFT v. WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPERTIES, LLC, UNITED AIRLINES, INC., AMR CORP., AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS AMERICAN EAGLE, GLOBE AVIATION SERVICES, INC., HUNTLEIGH USA CORPORATION, BOEING COMPANY, ARGENBRIGHT SECURITY INC., BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES CORP., BURNS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP., GLOBE AIRPORT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., UAL CORPORATION, AND ICTS INTERNATIONAL NV

Citations: 435 F.3d 136; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 590Docket: 05-0182-

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; January 10, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case addresses the legal standing of German Social Insurers (GSIs) to pursue state-law negligence and wrongful death claims following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, despite compensation already being received by the decedents' personal representatives from the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund (VCF). The GSIs sought recovery for insurance benefits paid to beneficiaries of six individuals affected by the attacks, invoking a German law that purportedly transferred the decedents' claims to them. The district court dismissed the GSIs' claims, a decision upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, based on the exclusive federal cause of action under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which preempts such state-law claims. The court also applied Pennsylvania law to the claims, given the location of the injuries, and determined that the GSIs did not qualify to bring wrongful death or survival actions, as they were not personal representatives of the decedents' estates. Lastly, the court dismissed the GSIs' argument concerning collateral source rights under the VCF, affirming the district court's decision to ensure finality of liability and adherence to state policy decisions.

Legal Issues Addressed

Choice of Law in Tort Claims

Application: The court determined that Pennsylvania law should govern the claims related to injuries from United Airlines Flight 93 due to the location of the injury, despite business connections to Germany.

Reasoning: It concludes that Pennsylvania law should govern the claims, primarily because the injury occurred there, despite the parties' business connections to Germany and the European Union.

Collateral Source Rule in VCF Claims

Application: The court rejected GSIs' argument that collateral source providers should have the right to pursue claims against tortfeasors, reinforcing the VCF's framework to prevent such actions.

Reasoning: The collateral source argument presented by plaintiffs was deemed meritless. Fund claimants retain the right to sue collateral source obligors, such as German Social Insurers (GSIs), but this does not imply that these obligors can sue third-party tortfeasors.

Exclusive Federal Cause of Action under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act

Application: The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that GSIs could not bring state-law negligence and wrongful death claims due to the exclusive federal cause of action established by the Act.

Reasoning: The district court ruled that the GSIs could not bring these claims, a decision that is affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wrongful Death Claims and Survivorship Actions

Application: GSIs lack standing to pursue wrongful death claims in New York or Pennsylvania, as they are not personal representatives of the decedents' estates.

Reasoning: The GSIs cannot claim wrongful death damages because they do not fit the categories designated by statute in either state.