Recent Developments In Aviation Products Liability

This article1 addresses selected topics of current interest and recent developments in the field of aviation products liability.2 The cases and legislation discussed below touch upon a wide variety of topics, including: pleading requirements arising out of Iqbal and Twombly; the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (―GARA‖); federal preemption; the government contractor defense, the educational malpractice doctrine and duty to train; the recently enacted Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011; and removal of aviation products liability cases based on federal question jurisdiction. To conclude, we briefly address recent developments in electronic discovery that have the potential to alter case strategy and the landscape of the cost of defending aviation products liability and commercial litigation cases.

1. Pleading Requirements After Iqbal and Twombly

   The United States Supreme Court decisions of Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly3 and Aschcroft v. Iqbal 4 and their progeny have altered the interpretation of the liberal pleading requirements of the Federal rules in ways that can be of benefit to aviation manufacturers. This section discusses two recent cases that address what it now means to ―state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‖5 At a minimum, plaintiffs must sufficiently identify the component or components that are claimed to be defective, the manner in which the components failed, and who is responsible for the failure.

   Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., No. 07-886, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38382 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2011).

   Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corporation6 involved a Complaint against many Defendants for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and concert of action related to a 1976 Cessna aircraft accident that resulted in the death of plaintiff's husband. The accident allegedly was caused by a malfunctioning carburetor. On July 10, 2005, the decedent was flying the accident aircraft when its Lycoming engine allegedly lost power due to a fuel system malfunction shortly after takeoff. The aircraft had been overhauled ―to a factory new condition,‖ which included a carburetor rebuilt or overhauled by the Kelly Defendants. Among other things, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants were aware of numerous problems and defects with the screws and locking mechanism for the carburetor, but failed to disclose that information. Defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part, as to allegations about state common-law standards of care, since the Court found that the field of aviation safety is preempted by federal law and regulations. However, the Court also granted Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint to assert violations of federal standards of care.

   Defendants' subsequent motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserted, among other things, that Plaintiff had failed to allege that Lycoming had manufactured, sold, or supplied the allegedly defective parts. Plaintiff argued that Twombly and Iqbal should not apply to the Amended Complaint since the original Complaint was filed before those cases were issued. Disagreeing with the Plaintiff, the Court applied the heightened pleading standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. As to Lycoming, the Court held that although Plaintiff alleged the collective responsibility for the carburetor by other parties, she also provided numerous detailed allegations which supported a claim that Lycoming was the manufacturer (or was in the chain of production) of the carburetor.7

   Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Cirrus Design Corp., No. 09-8357, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137527 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2010).

   American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, v. Cirrus Design Corporation8 involved claims seeking to recover money that was paid to tenants of the Belaire Manhattan Condominium after a Cirrus aircraft had crashed into the building. The crash allegedly was caused by ―certain defects‖ in the steering controls that prevented proper control of the airplane. Cirrus argued that the insurance companies had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and sought dismissal of the complaint. The Court granted the Cirrus motion, noting that the plaintiffs had not specified ―....the actual defective component or the nature of the defect.‖9 Accordingly, to satisfy the plausibility requirement set forth in Twombly and Iqbal, plaintiffs' amended complaint would have to state specific allegations as to the alleged airplane defects.

2. General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994

   As discussed below, there continue to be significant developments related to the application of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, Pub. L. No 103-298, 108 Stat. 1552 (1994) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 40201 et seq.).

   Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC, 254 P.3d 778 (Wash. 2011).

   After an airplane crash in Aguascalientes, Mexico that killed seven people and allegedly was caused by a rudder malfunction, Plaintiffs brought wrongful death actions against Twin Commander. Plaintiffs argued that although Twin Commander held the Type Certificate for the accident aircraft, it was not the ―manufacturer‖ of the aircraft and thus not protected by GARA. Twin Commander argued that for GARA purposes, it was the ―manufacturer‖ because it was the successor-in-interest to the Type Certificate even though it did not continue producing the aircraft. The Court concluded that the meaning of ―manufacturer‖ under GARA is a question of law and not fact. In a well reasoned opinion, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that Twin Commander should be considered a ―manufacturer‖ under GARA since it stepped into the shoes of an original manufacturer and assumed all its duties and obligations.10

   Crouch v. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., No. 10-00072, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67722 (S.D. Ala. June 22, 2011).

   Crouch v. Teledyne Continental Motors11 addressed claims made as a result of a 1977 Piper PA-32RT-300 Lance II Cherokee single-engine airplane crash in 2006 that allegedly was caused by defects in the housing of a recently overhauled Lycoming IO-540-K1G5D engine and Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. (―TCM‖) magneto. The airplane originally was sold in 1978, and the engine was overhauled in April 2005 by John Jewell Aircraft, Inc. Additionally, at the same time the engine was overhauled, the TCM magneto was replaced with the same type of magneto—and which had been factory rebuilt by TCM in 2005. Plaintiffs asserted that due to defective design, the mounting flanges on the TCM magneto housing broke as a result of fatigue fractures in the flanges, which caused the Cherokee to lose power and crash. The manufacturer argued that GARA prevents the Plaintiffs from asserting claims based on the alleged defects and that GARA's 18-year rolling provision for new parts should not apply, because the allegedly defective part was replaced with one of materially the same design, and because the fractures were the result of crash impact, and not fatigue. In denying TCM's motion for summary judgment, the Court cited the plain language of GARA's rolling provision and held that the time period for GARA is restarted when an old part is replaced with a new one, and that GARA did not require...