Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC
171 Wash. 2d 204
Wash.2011Background
- Seven people died in a 2004 airplane crash near Aguascalientes, Mexico; estates sued Twin Commander Aircraft LLC for wrongful death.
- Twin Commander, as the type certificate holder, is legally a “manufacturer” under GARA and thus protected by an 18-year repose period from first delivery.
- First delivery of the aircraft to its initial purchaser occurred in 1981; the accident happened well over 18 years later.
- GARA bars suits unless the fraud exception applies, which requires knowing misrepresentation, concealment, or withholding information from the FAA that is material to safety.
- Plaintiff argued that Twin Commander concealed or withheld information related to rudder issues and prior accidents, potentially triggering the fraud exception.
- The Washington Supreme Court held that Twin Commander is a manufacturer for GARA purposes and that the fraud exception requires a showing of knowing concealment or misrepresentation; summary judgment was proper to bar the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Twin Commander a ‘manufacturer’ under GARA? | Burton: not a manufacturer despite type certificate duties. | Twin Commander: type certificate holder assumes manufacturer duties; legally a manufacturer. | Yes; type certificate holder is a manufacturer. |
| Does GARA's fraud exception require knowing misrepresentation, concealment, or withholding? | Burton argues the email evidence shows knowledge and thus applies the exception. | Twin Commander contends no knowledge shown; no facts support knowing concealment/misrepresentation. | Fraud exception requires knowledge; Burton failed to prove knowing concealment/misrepresentation. |
| Does the rolling 18-year repose restart via service bulletin 235? | SB 235 could restart the repose for new information tied to the rudder issue. | No restart; rolling period only applies to replaced parts; does not reset the original 18 years here. | SB 235 does not restart the repose; 18-year bar applies. |
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on whether Twin Commander knowingly misled the FAA? | Evidence suggests possible connections between 1992 and later incidents; experts raise factual disputes. | Emails show investigation but no proof of knowing misrepresentation or withholding. | No genuine issue; no proof of knowing misrepresentation or withholding; summary judgment proper. |
| Should the Court have allowed trial on the fraud exception given disputed facts? | There are factual disputes about reporting and knowledge that warrant trial. | No material facts to defeat summary judgment; statutory standards control. | No; the motions for summary judgment were proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burroughs v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (type certificate holder bears manufacturer-like duties; protection extends to successors)
- Mason v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp., 653 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 2002) (type certificate holders can be treated as manufacturers under GARA)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 905 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2006) (construction of GARA as a question of law; duties of type certification relevant)
- Lyon v. Agusta, SPA, 252 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2001) (GARA aims to limit long-tail liability for general aviation)
- Estate of Kennedy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 283 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2002) (GARA creates a right not to stand trial under repose provisions)
- Butler v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (prior similar failures can trigger reporting duties; strong evidence of concealment)