Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC
254 P.3d 778
Wash.2011Background
- Airplane crash near Aguascalientes, Mexico; seven people died.
- Wrongful death actions filed against Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, the type certificate holder.
- Aircraft delivered to first purchaser in 1981; crash occurred in 2004, more than 18 years later.
- GARA provides an 18-year repose and rolling restart for new components; Twin Commander seeks protection as type certificate holder.
- Plaintiff asserts fraud exception under GARA § 2(b)(1) for withholding/reporting information to the FAA; burden on plaintiff to plead with specificity.
- Court granted summary judgment in favor of Twin Commander, holding Twin Commander is a manufacturer under GARA and the fraud exception evidence is insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twin Commander is a 'manufacturer' under GARA. | Burton argues Twin Commander isn’t a manufacturer; unclear liability scope. | Twin Commander is a type certificate holder assuming manufacturer duties; entitled to GARA protections. | Yes; type certificate holder is a 'manufacturer' under GARA. |
| Whether the 'fraud exception' to GARA's statute of repose applies. | Burton must show Twin Commander knowingly misrepresented/withheld information material to FAA. | Burton failed to prove knowing misrepresentation/withholding; e-mails insufficient. | No material fact showing knowing misrepresentation/withholding; exception does not apply. |
| Whether there is a material issue of fact to restart the 18-year repose via rolling restart for a new component. | Not necessary to decide as no knowing fraud shown; rolling restart not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burroughs v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 78 Cal.App.4th 681 (Cal. App. 2000) (type certificate/PMAs holders step into manufacturer shoes, receive GARA protection)
- Mason v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp., 653 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 2002) (type certificate holders protected under GARA when assuming manufacturer duties)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 588 Pa. 405, 905 A.2d 422 (2006) (interprets 'manufacturer' and duties for type certification under GARA)
- S. Side Trust & Sav. Bank of Peoria v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Ltd., 401 Ill.App.3d 424, 339 Ill. Dec. 638, 927 N.E.2d 179 (2010) (courts address whether type certificate holder is 'manufacturer' under GARA)
- Rickert v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd., 923 F. Supp. 1453 (D. Wyo. 1996) (pleading specificity for fraud exception under GARA)
- Butler v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 1073, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 762 (Cal. App. 2003) (discusses knowledge requirements for reporting to FAA under GARA)
- Robinson v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (evidence of concealment/knowledge in reporting context)
- Estate of Kennedy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 283 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2002) (GARA’s purpose and framework; right not to stand trial under repose)
- Lyon v. Agusta SPA, 252 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2001) (repose policy/long-tail liability concerns)