The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that the discretionary function exception bars wrongful death suits against the U.S Coast Guard under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) when the agency’s conduct involves policy-based regulatory judgments. The decision, Fiedler v. United States, affirmed the dismissal of claims arising from the 2019 D/V CONCEPTION fire that killed thirty-four (34) passengers and crew members. The CONCEPTION was a U.S. Coast Guard certificated passenger vessel with overnight accommodations operating as dive boat off California’s coast. All thirty-four (34) people sleeping below deck perished. Plaintiffs sued the U.S. Coast Guard, alleging negligent inspections allowed the vessel to operate with fire hazards including faulty electrical wiring, plastic trash cans, and plastic chairs.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit was asked whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function exception applies in actions under the SIAA. The Court applied the discretionary function exception’s two-part test, to find that Coast Guard inspections involve discretionary judgments. It held that no statute or regulation mandated that inspectors identify the specific hazards alleged. While inspections are required, the regulations governing how to conduct them leave inspectors substantial discretion regarding what constitutes “unsafe practices” or “hazardous situations.”
Next, the Court concluded that U.S. Coast Guard inspections involve economic and political policy considerations intended to be shielded from judicial scrutiny by the exception. The decision noted that federal law instructs inspectors to interpret regulations “to avoid disruption and undue expense to industry.” The 9th Circuit emphasized that requiring inspectors to balance safety, economics, and vessel-specific needs implicates the type of policy judgments Congress sought to protect from judicial review.
The decision reinforces the 9th Circuit’s prior ruling in Earles v. United States, 935 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1991), and is consistent every other federal circuit in applying the discretionary function exception to SIAA claims, despite the SIAA statute’s lack of an express textual exception. Judge Bumatay discussed the absence of an express exception in lengthy dissent, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority effectively overruled Earles by mandating strict adherence to statutory text in sovereign immunity waivers. The dissenting opinion demonstrates the limited willingness of Circuit Courts to embrace significant recent decisions by the Supreme Court.
For more information on the 9th Circuit’s ruling in the CONCEPTION matter, the Suits in Admiralty Act and/or the Federal Tor Claims Act, please feel free to contact us at: info@chaloslaw.com