1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Ode to Boilerplate

Ode to Boilerplate

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.02.14

In DMS Imaging Inc. v. U.S. (CFC Apr. 30, 2014), a boilerplate severability clause may have saved the contractor's claim for damages after equipment it leased to the government was destroyed. The government argued that the contractor's standard lease terms, expressly incorporated into the contract with the government, were invalid because they included an indemnification clause alleged to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, but the CFC found the government liable for damages to the equipment under a separate, risk-of-loss clause, which was not invalidated because, even if the indemnification clause were unenforceable, a third boilerplate provision provided that unenforceable or void provisions would be deemed severable. 


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights