Carol Williams, Individually, and for and on Behalf of the Estate and the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Anthony David Williams, et al. v. Avco Corporation, 2024-0144-Appeal.

Background

Anthony David Williams and William Clayton Young died when a Piper PA-32-300 Cherokee 6 crashed shortly after takeoff after an engine problem was reported. 1
The aircraft used a Lycoming IO-540-K1A5 engine designed by Avco in the 1960s and shipped to Piper in 1972. 2
The engine was overhauled in 1983 and 2004, and records for the flow divider identified Bendix, not Avco, as the manufacturer. 3
Plaintiffs sued Avco for strict liability, negligence, warranty, and emotional distress, and Avco invoked GARA as a statute of repose. 4
The trial justice denied discovery on the misrepresentation exception for lack of specific pleading and later granted summary judgment on both GARA exceptions. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did plaintiffs plead GARA misrepresentation with specificity? 6	Amended complaint was enough; discovery was needed to prove hidden FAA misrepresentations.	Plaintiffs alleged only conclusory statutory language, not specific facts.	No; pleading was insufficient, so discovery was properly limited. 7
Did GARA bar summary judgment on the misrepresentation exception? 8	GARA should not require pre-discovery proof of fraud on the FAA.	GARA requires specific pleading and proof of FAA misrepresentation.	Yes; summary judgment for Avco was proper on that theory. 9
Did the rolling provision apply to replacement parts? 10	Replacement fuel line, fuel hose, and exhaust valves were new Lycoming parts causing the crash.	Plaintiffs failed to prove Avco made the parts or that they caused the accident.	No; summary judgment was proper on the rolling-provision claims. 11
Did the discovery rulings violate the right to justice? 12	Limiting discovery prevented access to evidence and violated article 1, section 5.	Plaintiffs still had court access; GARA's limits are lawful.	No; plaintiffs were not denied access to the courts. 13

Key Cases Cited

Paolino v. Commonwealth Engineers & Consulting, Inc., 318 A.3d 209 (R.I. 2024) (summary judgment reviewed de novo 14)
Citizens Bank, N.A. v. Palermo, 247 A.3d 131 (R.I. 2021) (nonmovant must produce competent evidence to avoid summary judgment 15)
New England Property Services Group, LLC v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, 331 A.3d 730 (R.I. 2025) (statutory interpretation is de novo and text is read as a whole 16)
Crouch v. Honeywell International, Inc., 720 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2013) (GARA misrepresentation exception requires sufficiently specific pleading 17)
Tillman v. Raytheon Company, 430 S.W.3d 698 (Ark. 2013) (plaintiff must plead fraud-exception facts with specificity 18)
McAuliffe v. Robinson Helicopter Company, 173 F.4th 1029 (9th Cir. 2026) (generalized allegations do not satisfy GARA and causation is required for rolling provision 19)
Mile v. Kirkbrae Country Club, 331 A.3d 1003 (R.I. 2025) (trial justice has broad discovery discretion 20)
Caldwell v. Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, 230 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2000) (rolling provision restarts repose only for a new part causing the injury 21)
Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure-to-warn and design-defect theories do not fit GARA's new-parts exception 22)
American Commerce Insurance Company v. Porto, 811 A.2d 1185 (R.I. 2002) (proximate cause requires the defendant's conduct to produce the injury 23)
Zab v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 269 A.3d 741 (R.I. 2022) (article 1, section 5 prohibits total denial of court access 24)