The Supreme Court's Rejection of Government Indemnification to Agent Orange Manufacturers in Hercules, Inc. v. United States: Distinguishing the Forest from the Trees?

Authors

KaCey Reed, University of Richmond

Abstract

In recent years, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of immunity afforded to contractors for damages resulting from the performance of a government contract. However, the extent of the government's responsibility to indemnify third party claims resulting from a government contract has remained relatively obscure. Without clear direction, courts rejected government indemnification, relying upon a variety of detailed points of contract law which often concealed larger issues. In an appellate court dissent, Judge Plager criticized this result, warning that "undue attention to trees . . . often hides the forest."' Recently, in Hercules, Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether the United States Government has an obligation to reimburse manufacturers for expenses incurred from injuries caused by a product produced under a government contract.

Recommended Citation

KaCey Reed, The Supreme Court's Rejection of Government Indemnification to Agent Orange Manufacturers in Hercules, Inc. v. United States: Distinguishing the Forest from the Trees?, 31 U. Rich. L. Rev. 287 (1997).
Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol31/iss1/8