Documentation of Judge Hellerstein Rulings on 9/11 Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------x

IN RE SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION : OPINION AND ORDER

: GRANTING SUMMARY

: JUDGMENT DISMISSING

: WORLD TRADE CENTER

: PROPERTIES, LLC TOWER-

: TWO CLAIMS AGAINST

: AMERICAN AND GLOBE

:

: 21 MC 101 (AKH)

------------------------------------------------------x

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:

Defendants American Airlines, Inc. and AMR Corp. (collectively

“American”) and Globe Aviation Services Corp. (“Globe”) move for summary judgment

to dismiss the property damage claims of World Trade Center Properties, LLC

(“WTCP”) arising from the destruction of World Trade Center Tower Two by the

terrorists who hijacked United Air Lines Flight 175 and crashed the jumbo jet into the

110-story tower. The terrorists who had boarded United Air Lines Flight 175 had passed

through security administered by Huntleigh USA Corp. (“Huntleigh”) under the aegis of

United Air Lines, Inc. and UAL Corp. (collectively “United”). Huntleigh and United do

not move to dismiss the case against them.

American and Globe, the moving parties, contend that they had nothing to

do with security for United flights at Logan Airport, where the United flight originated.

WTCP, the plaintiff and respondent in this motion, sued the airline, airport, and security

companies for the damage to World Trade Center Towers One and Two arising from the

September 11 terrorist attacks. WTCP alleges that the defendants1 had negligent security

1 The defendants in the litigation are: American Airlines, Inc.; AMR Corporation; United Air Lines, Inc.;

UAL Corp.; US Airways Group, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. (collectively “US Airways”); Delta Air Lines,

Inc.; Continental Airlines, Inc.; AirTran Airways, Inc.; Colgan Air, Inc.; Globe Aviation Services

2

procedures that permitted the terrorists to board, hijack, and crash two airplanes into

Towers One and Two. Although American and Globe had responsibility for the

American, and not the United flights, departing from Logan Airport, and United and

Huntleigh had responsibility for the United, and not the American flights, departing from

Logan Airport, WTCP sued all four defendants and others, alleging that all are jointly and

severally liable for the destruction of Towers One and Two. American and Globe move

to dismiss claims relating to Tower Two, alleging that they had no duty for the Tower

Two property damage and did not cause, or contribute to the cause, of that damage.

WTCP makes essentially two arguments to support its complaint:

American’s and Globe’s negligence with respect to American Airlines Flight 11 set in

motion the series of events that led to the four September 11 hijackings; and American’s

negligence in waiting twenty-one minutes before notifying federal authorities that its

Flight 11 had been hijacked deprived the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and

United Air Lines of vital information that could have been used either to prevent the

hijacking of United Air Lines Flight 175, or its crash into Tower Two.

I hold that American and Globe, having played no part in the screening or

transporting of passengers with respect to United Airlines flight 175, had no duty to

United’s passengers or other victims of the United crash. I grant defendants’ motion, and

order the complaint dismissed against American and Globe.

On June 26, 2007, I heard oral arguments in this case for a similar

summary judgment motion brought by other defendants, US Airways, Continental, and

Corporation; Huntleigh USA Corp.; ICTS International NV; The Boeing Company; and the Massachusetts

Port Authority.

3

Colgan Air, regarding damages caused by the Flight 175 crash. Those defendants also

did not own, operate, or perform security for United Air Lines Flight 175. Plaintiffs

alleged that the defendants’ negligently screened passengers who connected to American

Airlines Flight 11 and who then passed through American’s independent security

screening process before boarding Flight 11. Plaintiffs argued against granting the

motion on the grounds that statutory, regulatory, and common laws create a duty to

defendants to report any aviation threats to authorities, that the behavior the defendants

observed ought to have been considered an aviation threat, and that the hijacking and

damage caused by United Airlines Flight 175 could have been prevented had the

defendants alerted authorities to threats to American Airlines Flight 11. I held that any

such duty to alert authorities to the threat of a hijacking does not create liability to those

injured by another hijacking, at least without an additional showing of a relationship that

could create a duty to those who were injured. Transcript of Oral Argument at 59-66

(June 26, 2007); Summary Order, In re September 11 Litig., In re September 11 Prop.

Damage & Bus. Loss Litig., Nos. 21 MC 97, 21 MC 101 (June 27, 2007). I now write to

set out my reasoning.

The 9/11 Commission investigated and reported the relevant facts of the

September 11, 2001 terrorists’ hijackings and the events following those hijackings.2

The parties have accepted the reported version as it relates to the facts of this case, and I

do as well.

2 See 9/11 Commission Records, Staff Monograph “Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security” (September

12, 2005) (“Staff Monograph”), available at http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/staff-reportsept2005.

pdf; THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, FINAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES (2004) (“COMMISSION REPORT”).

which may mean someone thinks it's important enough to spam... so I thought I would bump it up and make sure people see it!