Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act

{{Infobox U.S. legislation

| shorttitle = Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002

| othershorttitles = SAFETY Act

| enacted by = 107th

| effective date = November 25, 2002

| cite public law = {{uspl|107|296}}

| cite statutes at large = {{usstat|116|2135}}

| title amended = 6 U.S.C.: Domestic Security

| sections created = {{USC|6|441|444}}

| sections amended = {{USCClause|6|101| note}}

| leghisturl =

| introducedin =

| introducedbill =

| introducedby =

| introduceddate =

| committees =

| passedbody1 =

| passeddate1 =

| passedvote1 =

| passedbody2 =

| passedas2 =

| passeddate2 =

| passedvote2 =

| conferencedate =

| passedbody3 =

| passeddate3 =

| passedvote3 =

| agreedbody3 =

| agreeddate3 =

| agreedvote3 =

| agreedbody4 =

| agreeddate4 =

| agreedvote4 =

| passedbody4 =

| passeddate4 =

| passedvote4 =

| signedpresident = George W. Bush

| signeddate = November 25, 2002

| amendments =

| SCOTUS cases =

}}

The Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act, is a US act that was enacted as Subtitle G of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. It creates an exclusive federal cause of action for claims against the provider of a certain "qualified anti-terrorism technology".

Description

The SAFETY Act is an act that was enacted in the US as Subtitle G of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.({{USStatute|107|296|116|2135|2002|11|25}}) It creates an exclusive federal cause of action for claims against the provider of a "qualified anti-terrorism technology" (QATT) where the QATT was deployed to protect against, in response to, or to recover from an act of terrorism.{{USCSub|6|442|a}} This cause of action provides limits on recovery that might otherwise be present under a state law cause of action. For instance, punitive damages cannot be recovered.{{USCSub|6|442|b|1}} The Act also specifies that QATT providers may invoke a "government contractor defense" in a lawsuit alleging product liability for such technologies following a terrorist attack.{{USCSub|6|442|d}}{{cite book|last1=Bergkamp|first1=Lucas|last2=Faure|first2=Michael|editor1-last=Bergkamp|editor1-first=Lucas|editor2-last=Faure|editor2-first=Michael|editor3-last=Hinteregger|editor3-first=Monika|editor4-last=Philipsen|editor4-first=Niels|title=Civil Liability in Europe for Terrorism-Related Risk|date=2015|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-10044-2|doi=10.1017/CBO9781316178997.009|pages=252–282|chapter=Alternative Systems for Redressing Terrorism-Related Risks|s2cid=156131033 |url=https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/58a449f6-c004-4540-a435-d4a9982b248e |via=Cambridge Books Online|type=subscription required }}{{rp|255–256}} QATT providers are also required to obtain liability insurance,{{USCSub|6|443|a|1}} and the extent of liability under the cause of action is limited to the coverage limit of such required liability insurance.{{USCSub|6|443|c}}

References

{{reflist|30em}}