Hercules Inc. v. United States (1995)
- Docket
- 94-818
- Decided
- 1995-01-01
Summary
Question: May the chemical manufacturers of Agent Orange recover costs incurred from defending and settling third-party tort claims arising out of their performance of Government contracts from the Government on alternative theories of contractual indemnification or warranty of specifications provided by the Government? Conclusion: No. In a 6-2 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the manufacturers may not recover on their warranty-of-specifications and contractual-indemnification claims. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that the manufactures could not recover from the government because the contracts did not contain warranties or indemnification provisions for costs in defending and settling third-party tort claims resulting from chemical manufacture and use. Moreover, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the context in which the government compelled the manufacturer to manufacture Agent Orange did not give rise to an implied-in-fact indemnity agreement. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice John Paul Stevens did not participate in the case.