The contract specification defense is afforded to both private and government contractors when they follow the directions and specifications of a third party, usually the employer. The first element of the Boyle defense requires that the government approve reasonably precise specifications for the equipment’s design. (106) See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 512 (setting forth the elements of the Boyle government contractor defense); Cahoon, supra note 1, at 835 (discussing the "reasonably precise specifications" element that a government contractor must prove in order to avoid liability under the government contractor defense). firmed the "[g]overnment contractor defense," now also known as the "Boyle defense."9 In Boyle, the Court concluded that govern-mental contractors are immune from tort liability under certain cir-cumstances. 10 Since then, the government contractor defense has grown in strength, shielding those successfully invoking it from li-

20 Jul 2016 In Boyle, the Supreme Court expanded Yearsley to specifically cover military procurement contractors. But, at that time, the prevailing view of  2 Sep 2014 The Supreme Court in Boyle set forth a now well-known three-pronged test a company must pass to prevail on the government contractor defense  Hurley, Jr., Gov- ernment Contractor Liability in Military Design Defect Cases: The Need for Judicial Inter- vention, 117 MIL. L. REv. 219, 226 (1987) (citing  27 Jun 2018 Government Contractor Defense. In the landmark case of Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the U.S. Supreme 

of the government contractor defense. In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the Court found additional authority for the defense in the discretionary function provision of the FTCA, which precludes the imposi-tion of liability on the government for “the exercise or performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary

The Government Contractor Defense: Defending Boyle’s Analysis and Extending It Beyond the Realm of Military Procurement Contracts Eric M. Gonzalez ∗ I. Introduction . The government contractor defense has a long and conflicted history reaching back to the Civil War era . The defense stands for the idea that a contractor working for the The government contractor defense may offer protection from state law product liability actions arising out of a contractor’s compliance with a federal government contract. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this defense in Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, 487 U.S. 500 (1988). The contract specification defense is afforded to both private and government contractors when they follow the directions and specifications of a third party, usually the employer. The first element of the Boyle defense requires that the government approve reasonably precise specifications for the equipment’s design. (106) See Boyle, 487 U.S. at 512 (setting forth the elements of the Boyle government contractor defense); Cahoon, supra note 1, at 835 (discussing the "reasonably precise specifications" element that a government contractor must prove in order to avoid liability under the government contractor defense). firmed the "[g]overnment contractor defense," now also known as the "Boyle defense."9 In Boyle, the Court concluded that govern-mental contractors are immune from tort liability under certain cir-cumstances. 10 Since then, the government contractor defense has grown in strength, shielding those successfully invoking it from li- Government Contractor Defense In the landmark case of Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a defense contractor manufacturing a military product in accordance with precise government specifications may not be held liable for claims resulting from use of the manufactured product. The government contractor defense is a potentially dispositive defense that can be raised by contractor-defendants in certain product liability cases. Understanding the basics of this defense, and in particular the requirements and scope of its application, is extremely important to companies that provide products with a military application.

The government contractor defense is a potentially dispositive defense that can be raised by contractor-defendants in certain product liability cases. Understanding the basics of this defense, and in particular the requirements and scope of its application, is extremely important to companies that provide products with a military application.

Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation Case Brief - Rule of Law: To the for any design flaws since it met the requirements of the “military contractor defense. legislation immunizing government contractors from liability for design flaws,  27 Apr 2018 It is a decision about which all government contractors should be aware. it rejected the argument that the preemption doctrine established in Boyle v. derives from sovereign immunity, and thus is a jurisdictional defense. Look up "government contractor defense" or "defense contractor defense" I'll have to do some more research into the scope of Boyle and 

22 Nov 2016 defense of government contractor immunity because the C-47 Boyle, a federal contractor cannot be held liable for a state tort if, in the context 

The government contractor defense is a potentially dispositive defense that can be raised by contractor-defendants in certain product liability cases. Understanding the basics of this defense, and in particular the requirements and scope of its application, is extremely important to companies that provide products with a military application. Several federal district courts have held that the government contractor defense applies to government service contracts. See Askir v. Root and Brown Root Service, 1997 WL 598587 at * 5-6 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (stating that both Yearsley and Boyle provide authority for applying the government contractor defense to service contracts and holding the BOYLE v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. AND THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR DEFENSE: AN ANALYSIS BASED ON THE CURRENT CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE DEFENSE In its present form, the federal government contractor defense extends the federal governmeht's immunity from suits by gov-

The contract specification defense is afforded to both private and government contractors when they follow the directions and specifications of a third party, usually the employer. The first element of the Boyle defense requires that the government approve reasonably precise specifications for the equipment’s design.

The Government Contractors Defense (GCD) is a statutory form of immunity, typically for third-party liability claims, available to Federal. Government Contractors.

Boyle Court's three-prong government contractor defense test. Part IV examines how different courts have interpreted Boyle, analyzing how the lower courts have inconsistently treated the question of whether performance contractors17 should be able to assert the government contractor defense. Part IV concludes that a uniform rule The Government Contractor Defense is an affirmative defense that vests an independent contractor performing procurement work for the government with complete immunity from state-based tort claims in situations where the government itself is immune. In its present form, the federal government contractor defense extends the federal government's immunity from suits by government employees injured by defective equipment to contractors who provide equipment to the government under government-provided specifications.(1) The U.S. Supreme Court attempted to clarify the basis for the defense in Boyle v. In Boyle, the Supreme Court held that the government contractor defense applied to design defect cases. The reasons for applying the defense to defect cases were two-fold: (1) separation of powers suggested that the judiciary should be hesitant to intervene in matters of military procurement contracts; and (2) a higher risk of liability for