Government Liable for $99 Million in Breach of Contract Damages Under Indemnification Clause
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.24.18
On July 18, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Shell Oil Co., et al. awarding $99.5M to Shell and other oil companies for the government’s breach of World War II-era contracts for high-octane aviation gasoline production (previously discussed here, and here).
The case began when the U.S. and California sued the oil companies under CERCLA for costs of cleaning up acid sludge caused by the gasoline production. After being found liable under CERCLA, the companies filed claims against the government at the COFC for reimbursement of their CERCLA costs under the theory that the government had breached the “Taxes” clauses in their contracts, which, they argued, required the government to pay “any” charges related to gasoline production. In a decision which may encourage other contractors to pursue recovery under similar contract provisions such as “hold harmless” clauses in facilities contracts, and indemnification clauses authorized under Public Law 85-804, the Federal Circuit ruled that the COFC properly determined that the government breached the Taxes clause, and affirmed the award of $99.5M in damages (including nearly $31 million in interest on the companies’ claims).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate







