6 U.S.C. § 442 — Litigation management

(a) Federal cause of action. (1) In general. This creates a federal legal claim for lawsuits arising out of, related to, or resulting from an act of terrorism — but only when "qualified anti-terrorism technologies" were used to defend against, respond to, or recover from that attack, and the claims might cause the seller of that technology to suffer a loss. The substantive law used to decide these cases comes from the law (including choice-of-law rules) of the state where the terrorist act happened, unless that state law conflicts with or is overridden by federal law. This federal claim can only be brought for injuries that a technology seller directly and proximately caused, where the seller supplied the qualified technology to a government customer, federal or non-federal. (2) Jurisdiction. The right federal district court has exclusive, original jurisdiction over every claim for property loss, personal injury, or death arising from an act of terrorism where qualified anti-terrorism technologies were used in defense, response, or recovery, and where the claims might cause the seller a loss. (b) Special rules. In a damages lawsuit brought under this section: (1) Punitive damages. No punitive damages, exemplary damages, or any other damages meant to punish rather than compensate the plaintiff for real losses may be awarded. No party owes interest for the period before judgment, either. (2) Noneconomic damages. A defendant can only be ordered to pay noneconomic damages in direct proportion to their share of the responsibility for the plaintiff's harm — and a plaintiff can't recover any noneconomic damages unless they suffered actual physical harm. "Noneconomic damages" means compensation for things like physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, lost enjoyment of life, lost companionship, loss of consortium, "hedonic" damages, harm to reputation, and any other losses that aren't about money directly. (c) Collateral sources. Whatever a plaintiff recovers gets reduced by the amount of "collateral source" compensation — money from other sources — that the plaintiff has already received, or is entitled to receive, because of the same terrorist act. (d) Government contractor defense. (1) In general. If a product-liability or other lawsuit gets filed over claims connected to a terrorist act where technology the Secretary approved was used in defense, response, or recovery — and the claims might cause the seller a loss — there's a rebuttable presumption that the "government contractor defense" applies. That presumption can only be overcome with evidence that the seller committed fraud or willful misconduct when submitting information to the Secretary during the approval process. This presumption applies whether the claim comes from a sale to a federal or non-federal government customer. (2) Exclusive responsibility. The Secretary alone reviews and approves anti-terrorism technology for purposes of this government-contractor defense. When a seller submits technology for approval, the Secretary must comprehensively review its design and decide whether it will work as intended, matches the seller's specifications, and is safe to use as intended. The seller must run safety and hazard analyses on the technology and give all of that information to the Secretary. (3) Certificate. Once the Secretary approves a technology, the Secretary issues the seller a certificate of conformance and adds the technology to an "Approved Product List for Homeland Security." (e) Exclusion. Nothing in this section limits anyone's ability to seek any kind of recovery from a person, government, or other entity that attempts, knowingly participates in, aids, abets, or commits an act of terrorism (or a related crime) — or that conspires to commit such an act or crime. In other words, this section protects sellers of approved technology; it does not protect the actual terrorists or their co-conspirators.