Orange County Court Ruling Involves First-Ever Case : Judge Says State Can Hear Suit on Satellite Loss
Rejecting arguments by Morton Thiokol Inc. and two other aerospace firms, a state judge ruled Friday that he has the authority to hear the first lawsuit ever filed over the loss of satellites in space.
The judge ruled that federal law does not preclude a lawsuit in state court filed by firms that paid part of $180 million in insurance covering the failed deployment of two communications satellites from the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1984.
The insurance firms that filed the suit claim that they were damaged by “space torts” committed by Morton Thiokol Inc., McDonnell Douglas Corp. and Hitco, the three firms that manufactured a device designed to deploy the satellites from the 10th space shuttle flight.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Tully H. Seymour decided Friday that nothing in federal law prohibits the case from being heard in a state court or prohibits the application of California law of negligence and strict liability for manufacturers.
‘No Law in Space’
“There is no law in outer space,” David Cynamon, a Washington attorney representing the insurance companies, argued in a recent court appearance. “It’s a vacuum. It’s a legal vacuum. There is no reason not to apply California law.”
The aerospace firms claimed that the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act and later regulations of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration preempted judges in state courts from hearing space disputes. Seymour on Friday found no evidence of congressional intent to preclude the involvement of state courts.
Since the beginning of the shuttle program, NASA has required all shuttle users to agree not to sue each other in the event of a mishap. The owners of the two satellites involved in the failed deployment in 1984, Western Union Telegraph Co. and the Republic of Indonesia, both signed the agreement.
The insurance companies that filed the lawsuit paid Western Union and Indonesia under policies they had taken out to cover losses from a failed deployment. Now the insurance companies want to collect from the aerospace firms they say are responsible for the failure.
Argue Against Suit
McDonnell Douglas, Morton Thiokol and Hitco contend, however, that the insurance companies are bound by the agreement that Western Union and Indonesia signed and therefore should not be allowed to sue.
Lawyers in the case have cited President Reagan’s decision last month to drastically reduce commercial access to the space shuttle, reserving most launches for military payloads. Cynamon argued that the new federal policy, which may force firms to develop non-government launching services rather than rely on shuttle launches, makes the creation of a body of law of governing outer space more urgent.
NASA’s contract against suing was designed to free businesses involved in experimental exploitation of space from fears of legal liability that might limit space exploration, according to NASA officials.
A controversy had developed even before the lawsuit was filed over whether firms attempting to exploit space commercially--such as the multibillion-dollar telecommunications industry--deserved such special protection.
Nine months after the two satellites failed to reach functioning orbit after the botched deployment from the shuttle, they were retrieved by astronauts on a later mission in 1984 and returned to earth.
