Deciphering Sikkelee: Implications For Aviation Claims And Product Manufacturers

On April 19, 2016, the Third Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp. et al.1 Aviation product manufacturers had hoped the opinion, which considered whether the Federal Aviation Act ("Act") and Federal Aviation Act ("FAA") regulations preempt aviation product liability claims, would result in an affirmative finding of preemption. The Third Circuit instead found against field preemption but recognized that traditional principles of conflict preemption could preempt certain aviation product liability claims. This Commentary discusses the Sikkelee decision, how it compares to decisions in other Circuits, and its implications for the future.

The Third Circuit's Opinion in Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp. et al.

In July 2005, pilot David Sikkelee perished when his Cessna 172N aircraft crashed in North Carolina. In 2004, the Cessna's engine had been overhauled and a new carburetor was installed pursuant to the manufacturer's FAA issued type-certified design. In 2007, Mr. Sikkelee's spouse filed suit against 17 defendants in the Middle District of Pennsylvania claiming that the crash resulted from alleged manufacturing and design defects in the Cessna's engine—specifically, a "malfunction or defect in the engine's carburetor."2

The complaint alleged various claims incorporating state law standards of care, including strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, misrepresentation, and concert of action. In 2010, the district court dismissed the complaint, finding the state law claims fell within the preempted field of "air safety" pursuant to Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc.3 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting state law claims but incorporating federal standards of care reflected in FAA regulations. The remaining state law claims included design defect and failure to warn.4

The district court granted partial summary judgment with respect to the amended defective design claim. The court found the type certificate issued to the manufacturer by the FAA established the federal standard of care, and the "issuance of a type certificate for the ... engine meant that the federal standard of care had been satisfied as a matter of law."5 The court denied summary judgment on the failure to warn claim.6 The Third Circuit agreed to interlocutory review, noting the decision "raised novel and complex questions concerning the reach of Abdullah and the scope of preemption in the airlines industry."7

The Holding

The Third Circuit reversed, limiting the scope of Abdullah's holding. Importantly, the court drew a distinction between claims based on in-air operations and those based on design defects, stating that Abdullah's preemption does not extend to product liability claims. In a 60-page opinion, the court concluded that Congress did not express a clear and manifest intent "to preempt aircraft products liability claims in a categorical way."8 Thus, "neither the [Act] nor the issuance of a type certificate per se preempts all aircraft design and manufacturing claims."9 Rather, the court held that state law applied to product claims, subject to "traditional principles of conflict preemption" to resolve any conflicts between the pertinent type certificate specifications and state law standards of care.10

The Court's Reasoning

Interpreting Abdullah and the Field of "Air Safety." In Abdullah, the Third Circuit addressed the allegation that, while the defendant airline followed federal in-flight seatbelt regulations, it failed to adequately warn passengers of the need to fasten their seatbelts in the face of upcoming turbulence. Abdullah held that federal aviation regulations occupied the field of "air safety" and thus preempted any state-created duties of care because the FAA, through the broad authority granted to it by the Act, "has implemented a comprehensive system of rules and regulations, which promotes flight safety by regulating pilot certification, pilot pre-flight duties, pilot flight responsibilities, and flight rules," and these regulations must remain uniform in the field.11 The Abdullah court found that federal preemption in the field of air safety was supported by decisions in other circuits, and in the United States Supreme Court, that "had found federal preemption with regard to discrete matters of in-flight operations, including aircraft noise ... pilot regulation ... and control of flights through navigable airspace."12

The Sikkelee court read Abdullah narrowly. It noted that, although Abdullah described the preempted field as "air safety," it really included only "in-air operations."13 The court stated that Abdullah discussed a catch-all standard of care in FAA regulations for in-air operations (something not applicable to design and manufacturing), and that Abdullah relied on regulations and other opinions relating only to in-air operations. The court further noted the Third Circuit also limited Abdullah in Elassaad v. Indep. Air, Inc.,14 where the court declined to apply Abdullah to the disembarkation of passengers after an airplane came to a complete stop at its destination. Elassaad, the court said, "made clear that the field of aviation safety described in Abdullah was limited to in-air operations."15

Field Preemption. As an initial matter, the Sikkelee court observed that, because state law has consistently been applied to product liability claims, the presumption against preemption applies to aviation product liability cases.16 The court...