Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., L.P.
737 F.3d 166 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's alleged negligence is not the cause-in-fact of an injury if the injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's conduct due to an unprecedented and catastrophic series of events.
Facts:
- Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. ('Con Ed') owned and operated an electrical substation located directly underneath the 7 World Trade Center building ('7WTC').
- Defendants, including 7 World Trade Company, L.P. ('7WTCo.'), designed, constructed, and operated 7WTC, completing construction in 1987.
- On September 11, 2001, terrorists crashed hijacked airplanes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
- The subsequent collapse of the North Tower propelled flaming debris into 7WTC, causing significant structural damage and igniting fires on multiple, non-contiguous floors.
- The collapse of the Twin Towers also destroyed the water main that supplied 7WTC's sprinkler system and local fire hydrants, leaving no water available to fight the fires.
- Confronted with widespread fires, a non-existent water supply, and the recent deaths of 343 firefighters, the New York City Fire Department made the decision to establish a collapse zone and allow 7WTC to burn unchecked.
- After burning for approximately seven hours, 7WTC collapsed.
- The collapse of 7WTC completely destroyed Con Ed's electrical substation underneath it.
Procedural Posture:
- Consolidated Edison Co. ('Con Ed') and its insurers sued the designers, builders, and operators of 7WTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for negligence.
- The district court granted a motion to dismiss brought by construction defendants Tishman Construction and the Office of Irwin G. Cantor, P.C., finding they owed no duty of care to Con Ed.
- The developer and manager defendants ('7WTCo.') later moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 7WTCo., concluding that their duty of care did not extend to the unforeseeable and attenuated chain of events that occurred on September 11, 2001.
- Con Ed appealed both the dismissal and the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's alleged negligence in building design the cause-in-fact of a building's collapse when that collapse occurred during the unprecedented catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, which included massive structural damage from falling debris, uncontrollable fires, and a complete loss of firefighting capabilities?
Opinions:
Majority - Pooler, Circuit Judge
No, a defendant's alleged negligence is not the cause-in-fact of a building's collapse when an unprecedented confluence of catastrophic events would have caused the collapse regardless of the alleged negligence. While the district court erred in finding the defendants owed no duty because the specific events of 9/11 were unforeseeable—as the general risk of fire is foreseeable—this court affirms on the alternate grounds of causation. To establish cause-in-fact, a plaintiff must prove the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's conduct. Here, the unique constellation of events—cascading debris causing immense structural damage, widespread fires on multiple non-contiguous floors, the complete destruction of the water main, and the fire department's necessary decision to let the building burn for seven hours—demonstrates that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any alleged design or construction defects. The plaintiff's expert reports, which focus only on the building's ability to withstand an unfought fire in isolation, are too speculative as they fail to account for the totality and severity of the 9/11 cataclysm. It is incompatible with common sense to require defendants to design a building to survive such an extraordinary chain of events.
Dissenting - Wesley, Circuit Judge
Yes, a defendant's alleged negligence can be considered the cause-in-fact of a building's collapse, creating a triable issue for a jury, when the plaintiff's experts have presented evidence of a specific standard of care and a deviation from it. The plaintiff's experts opined that high-rise buildings must be designed to withstand a complete burnout of their contents without collapsing, even without firefighter intervention, and that 7WTC failed to meet this standard due to specific design flaws. These experts also concluded that the collapse was not caused by structural damage from falling debris. This creates a genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation. The majority improperly resolves this factual dispute as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage instead of allowing a jury to weigh the competing expert testimonies. Therefore, the case should be remanded for trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of the cause-in-fact element of negligence in the context of large-scale, catastrophic events. It establishes that even where a duty of care and a potential breach exist, a court may find as a matter of law that causation is severed if the intervening event is so overwhelming that it would have produced the same harm regardless of the defendant's conduct. The ruling sets a high bar for plaintiffs seeking damages resulting from acts of terrorism or other unprecedented disasters, suggesting that 'common sense' can override expert speculation when apportioning liability in extreme circumstances. This creates a powerful defense in tort litigation arising from such events, effectively treating the catastrophe itself as the sole legal cause.
