Estate of Grochowske ex rel. Grochowske v. Romey
813 N.W.2d 687
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Beec h Aircraft B95A accident 2004; three fatalities; NTSB found regulator nut on fuel servo loosened fuel delivery.
- RSA-5AD1 servo manufactured in 1973 by Bendix (predecessor to Precision); servo reconfigured 198?6, later overhauled 2000 by D&G with Goode parts.
- Precision issued maintenance manuals for fuel servos; Bendix 1982 manual recommended Loctite; Precision 1992 revision added cautions about Loctite.
- Plaintiffs alleged Precision failed to warn and gave inadequate instructions in the maintenance manual.
- Precision moved for summary judgment arguing GARA’s 18-year repose barred claims and no evidence of fraud exception.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; plaintiffs appealed on whether the manual is within GARA and whether fraud exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GARA’s statute of repose applies to the manual claim. | Manual is not a part of aircraft; not covered by GARA. | Manual issued by manufacturer is within GARA as maintenance information from a manufacturer. | Manual falls under GARA as a manufacturer’s duty; not a separate product. |
| Whether the fraud exception to GARA applies. | Precision knowingly concealed/reported information to FAA; fraud exception should apply. | No specific evidence of knowledge; no genuine issue of material fact. | Fraud exception not proven; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Schweizer Aircraft Corp., 653 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 2002) (maintenance manuals issued by manufacturer protected by GARA)
- Alter v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 944 F. Supp. 533 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (maintenance manuals not separate products; precluded by repose)
- Butchkosky v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 855 F. Supp. 1251 (S.D. Fla. 1993) (backdoor by automatic repairs would undermine repose)
- Rickert v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd., 923 F. Supp. 1453 (D. Wyo. 1996) (knowledge element required for fraud exception)
- Rogers v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (manual not part of airplane; misinstruction claim)
- Burton v. Precision Airmotive LLC, 7 A.3d 256 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (GARA interpretation; PMA holder treated as manufacturer)
- Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2001) (GARA runs from first transfer date)