Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

liabilitystatuteappealtrialpleasummary judgmentburden of proof
damagesstatuteappealtrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Harris v. Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc., 68 Cal.App.5th 594, 283 Cal.Rptr.3d 637, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8915, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9263
View Case »
Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 41 Media L. Rep. 2129, 42 Media L. Rep. 1327, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 766, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 224
View Case »
Monk v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority, 53 F.3d 1381, 32 V.I. 425
View Case »
Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734
View Case »
Frederick v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 337 Pa. 136, 10 A.2d 576
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, 171 Wash.2d 204, 254 P.3d 778, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,620

Facts

The case arose from an airplane crash in Mexico that killed seven people. The personal representative of the decedents' estates filed wrongful death actions against Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, claiming that a service bulletin issued by Twin Commander was defective and caused the crash. The trial court granted summary judgment to Twin Commander, ruling that the statute of repose under GARA barred the claims since the crash occurred more than 18 years after the aircraft was delivered to its first purchaser. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

In May 2004, the crash in Mexico occurred. The model 690C aircraft was at that time owned by Mexico's Procuradia General de la República. Seven government agents were on board; all were killed in the accident. An investigation by the Mexican government reached the conclusion that the rudder came loose during flight, causing the accident.

Issue

Whether the personal representative's claims against Twin Commander are barred by the statute of repose under the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA), and whether the fraud exception to the statute applies.

The question we must answer is whether Mr. Burton is barred from bringing this suit based on GARA's statute of repose.

Rule

Under GARA, a manufacturer of general aviation aircraft is protected from liability if the accident occurred 18 years or more after the aircraft was delivered to its first purchaser, unless the claimant can prove that the manufacturer knowingly misrepresented, concealed, or withheld information from the FAA that is material to the aircraft's performance or safety.

GARA provides in relevant part: Sec. 2. Time limitations on civil actions against aircraft manufacturers. (a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (b), no civil action for damages for death or injury to persons or damage to property arising out of an accident involving a general aviation aircraft may be brought against the manufacturer of the aircraft or the manufacturer of any new component, system, subassembly, or other part of the aircraft, in its capacity as a manufacturer if the accident occurred- (1) after the applicable limitation period beginning on— (A) the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee, if delivered directly from the manufacturer; or (B) the date of first delivery of the aircraft to a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing such aircraft.

Analysis

The court determined that Twin Commander, as the type certificate holder, is considered a 'manufacturer' under GARA and is entitled to the statute of repose. The personal representative's reliance on the fraud exception was found to be insufficient, as he failed to plead specific facts demonstrating that Twin Commander knowingly withheld information from the FAA. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish the fraud exception, which was not met in this case.

We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Twin Commander and accordingly reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the summary judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Twin Commander, concluding that the claims were barred by GARA's statute of repose.

Reversed.

Who won?

Twin Commander Aircraft LLC prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims were barred by the statute of repose under GARA, and the personal representative failed to establish the necessary elements of the fraud exception.

Twin Commander moved for summary judgment on the basis of GARA. GARA bars actions against the manufacturers of general aviation aircraft if the accident occurred 18 years after delivery of the aircraft to the first purchaser.

You must be