Martin Marietta Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
1991 WL 81213, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6414, 763 F.Supp. 1327 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When sophisticated commercial parties enter into a contract that allocates risks for purely economic losses, no independent tort duty arises from the contractual relationship. Furthermore, public policy articulated by statute can validate contractual waivers of liability even for gross negligence in high-risk industries that Congress seeks to promote.
Facts:
- In August 1987, International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) contracted with Martin Marietta Corporation for the launch of two satellites into orbit for a fixed price.
- During the first launch, the satellite and its attached motor failed to separate from the Titan III rocket at the scheduled time.
- Although INTELSAT later managed to separate the satellite, it could not be placed into its proper orbit, rendering it useless.
- INTELSAT sustained substantial economic losses, including the launch cost of approximately $112 million and the loss of the satellite.
- The contract between the parties stipulated that INTELSAT was responsible for purchasing insurance to protect its property, but INTELSAT failed to procure such insurance.
- Both INTELSAT and Martin Marietta were sophisticated commercial entities with equal bargaining power.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Marietta Corporation filed an action in federal district court against INTELSAT, seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for the failed launch.
- INTELSAT filed a counterclaim against Martin Marietta, asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Martin Marietta then filed a motion to dismiss INTELSAT's counterclaim, specifically addressing the tort claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do tort claims for purely economic losses, such as negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, arise from the breach of a services contract between sophisticated commercial parties who had the opportunity to allocate risks?
Opinions:
Majority - Garbis, District Judge
No. In a purely contractual relationship between sophisticated parties where the injury is solely economic, tort duties do not arise independent of the contract. The court reasoned that the fundamental distinction between contract and tort law must be maintained. Contract duties are those specifically agreed upon, while tort duties are imposed by law to protect vulnerable parties. Here, the parties were sophisticated, had equal bargaining power, and had the opportunity to allocate risks and obtain insurance. INTELSAT's tort claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation fail because Martin Marietta owed no extra-contractual duty of care. Regarding gross negligence, while liability waivers are typically void against public policy, a stronger, legislatively-defined public policy exists here. The Commercial Space Launch Act requires such waivers to encourage the growth of the private space launch industry by limiting liability and insurance costs, and invalidating the waiver for gross negligence would undermine this clear Congressional intent.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the economic loss doctrine, which prevents parties in a commercial contract from recasting a breach of contract claim as a tort claim to recover damages beyond what the contract allows. It emphasizes that sophisticated parties are expected to protect their own interests through negotiation and risk allocation, such as insurance clauses. The most significant aspect of the ruling is its holding on gross negligence, carving out an exception to the general rule that such claims cannot be waived. The court's deference to the specific public policy goals articulated by Congress in the Commercial Space Launch Act demonstrates that a clear statutory scheme can override common law principles, providing robust liability protection for designated high-risk industries.
Unlock the full brief for Martin Marietta Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization