Opinion ID: 623016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CPA Order 17

Text: CPA Order 17 was signed into law the day before the CPA was dissolved. No one argues that the order was rescinded or altered prior to the filing of this suit. See Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 100 (CPA orders remain in force unless rescinded or amended by legislation). Arkel contends that the order makes it immune from Iraqi laws and Iraqi legal process: 2) Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts. . . . 3) Contractors shall be immune from Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto. Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17 § 4 (Revised) (June 27, 2004), available at http://www.iraqcoalition.org/ regulations/. In its ruling on summary judgment, the district court held that CPA Order 17 provides immunity to contractors from being sued in Iraq and from such Iraqi laws as relate to the terms and conditions of contracts. No immunity from tort claims resulted from that provision. The court further stated that CPA Order 17 did not provide immunity to Arkel for the plaintiffs' tort claims brought in federal court in Louisiana. We agree. Although CPA Order 17 provides contractors immunity from Iraqi laws relating to their contractual terms and conditions and from Iraqi legal process, it does not create an immunity from Iraqi laws relating to tort claims brought in federal court in the United States. A different provision of CPA Order 17 addresses tort claims. It provides that personal injury claims are to be dealt with consistently with the Sending State's [here, Louisiana's] laws, regulations and procedures. Except where immunity has been waived in accordance with Section 5 of this Order, third-party claims including those . . . for personal injury, illness or death . . . arising from or attributed to acts or omissions of . . . Contractors or any persons employed by them for activities relating to performance of their Contracts, whether normally resident in Iraq or not and that do not arise in connection with military operations, shall be submitted and dealt with by the Sending State whose personnel . . . are alleged to have caused the claimed damage, in a manner consistent with the Sending State's laws, regulations and procedures. Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17 § 18 (entitled Claims). This provision was not discussed in the appellate briefs and was barely mentioned in arguments before the district court. The response from the district court was that Arkel's argument was circular. Section 18 is a choice-of-law provision. All it does is require us to look at the law of Louisiana as the Sending State. Section 18 requires claims to be submitted and dealt with . . . in a manner consistent with the Sending State's laws, regulations and procedures. Included in that law is the state's choice-of-law principles. Consequently, if the plaintiffs' claim is submitted and dealt with . . . in a manner consistent with Louisiana law, that law uses Iraqi law for the standards of conduct and safety. It also in some circumstances borrows the period of limitations. Section 18 restates what the law of the forum state for the current suit, Louisiana, already required. It is superfluous here. It might be argued that Section 18 of CPA Order 17 is not a choice-of-law rule but is instead substantive. We do not interpret it that way. It speaks of claims being submitted and dealt with consistent with another country's laws and procedures. CPA Order 17 does not alter the application of Louisiana Civil Code Article 3543. We now turn to the Article that governs choice of law for prescriptive periods.