## Facts

- A National Guard officer suffered serious, permanent injuries when a fighter aircraft ejection system malfunctioned during an in-flight emergency.
- The injuries were service-connected and occurred while the officer was on military duty.
- The officer received a lifetime pension under the Veterans’ Benefits Act.
- The officer sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and sued Stencel Aero Engineering Corp., the contractor that manufactured the ejection system.
- The officer alleged the United States and Stencel were individually and jointly negligent.
- Stencel filed a third-party claim against the United States seeking indemnity or contribution, alleging any defect was caused by faulty government specifications and government-furnished components.

## Issues

1. Whether a government contractor may maintain a third-party indemnity or contribution claim against the United States under the FTCA when the underlying injury is a service-connected injury to a servicemember barred by the Feres doctrine.
2. Whether allowing such indemnity would improperly expand the United States’ liability beyond the veterans’ benefits scheme for service-connected injuries.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Stencel’s third-party indemnity claim against the United States.
- The Court held that the rationale of Feres bars not only direct FTCA suits by servicemembers for injuries incident to service, but also contractor indemnity claims that would shift to the United States damages paid for the same service-connected injury.
- The Court limited the general permissibility of third-party recovery against the United States recognized in prior FTCA contribution/indemnity precedent where the injured party is a servicemember.

## Legal Principles

- The FTCA does not permit recovery for injuries to servicemembers that arise out of or occur in the course of activity incident to service (Feres doctrine).
- Feres also bars third-party indemnity or contribution claims against the United States when the underlying injury is service-connected, because the litigation would still require adjudicating government fault connected to military service.
- The relationship between the Government and the armed forces, and between the Government and its military suppliers, is distinctively federal; state-law indemnity standards should not control liability for service-connected injuries.
- The veterans’ benefits system functions as the exclusive remedy, or at least an upper limit, on the Government’s liability for service-connected injuries; indemnity would circumvent that statutory limitation.
- Concerns about interference with military discipline apply equally to third-party indemnity actions because they can require judicial review of military decisions and conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a contractor cannot use the FTCA to obtain indemnity or contribution from the United States for damages arising from a servicemember’s service-connected injury, because Feres and the veterans’ benefits scheme preclude indirect expansion of governmental liability and avoid judicial intrusion into military matters.


Stencel Aero Eng’g Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666 (1977)