Hamilton v. MPB Corporation
N18C-03-156 CEB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2019Background
- Civil action arises from a helicopter crash in Dothan, Alabama in which civilian flight instructor David Hamilton was injured during a forced landing after an engine/component failure. The helicopter was U.S. Army–owned and investigated by the Army.
- Army investigation identified failure of an internal drive bearing within the power turbine governor; Honeywell (engine OEM) had issued safety bulletins about such failures.
- Plaintiffs filed an original complaint within two years of the crash naming identified defendants and multiple fictitious (John Doe) defendants but did not name MPB Corporation d/b/a Timken.
- About eight months after the limitations period, and after Honeywell was named and identified Timken as a parts manufacturer during settlement/mediation, plaintiffs sought leave to amend to add Timken.
- Timken moved to dismiss, arguing the amendment was time-barred and did not relate back under Delaware Rule 15; plaintiffs argued Alabama law (which permits fictitious-party practice and relation back) governs and that they exercised due diligence given military information restrictions.
- The court held Alabama law governs the relation-back inquiry, found plaintiffs exercised due diligence (military control, redactions, FOIA/Touhy delays, and Honeywell identification), and denied Timken’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law — which state's law governs relation back | Alabama law governs because injury, parties, and events occurred in Alabama | Delaware law (forum) should govern because corporate defendants are Delaware entities | Court applied Alabama law under §146/choice-of-law principles (Bell Helicopter cited) |
| Which statute of limitations applies | Alabama 2-year SOL applies (crash & parties in Alabama) | Delaware 2-year SOL (same length) — borrowing statute not implicated | Court found no conflict; applied Alabama law for relation-back analysis |
| Whether amendment adding Timken relates back to original complaint | Relation back permitted under Alabama fictitious-party practice (Rule 9(h)) because plaintiffs used John Doe placeholders and later discovered Timken | Timken: amendment filed after SOL expired; plaintiffs failed to show "mistake" or due diligence so relation back not available | Relation back permitted under Alabama law once plaintiff shows identity was unknown, not readily ascertainable, and due diligence was exercised |
| Due diligence/factual sufficiency to permit fictitious-party substitution | Plaintiffs pursued FOIA/Touhy requests, obtained heavily redacted Army report, did open-source investigation, and promptly amended after Honeywell identified Timken | Timken contends plaintiffs could have discovered Timken earlier and failed to exercise due diligence | Court held plaintiffs met due diligence standard given military secrecy, redactions, and Honeywell’s role in identifying Timken; amendment relates back and Timken’s dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Arteaga, 113 A.3d 1045 (Del. 2015) (choice‑of‑law presumption favors law of the place of injury in personal‑injury actions)
- DeRienzo v. Harvard Indus., Inc., 357 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2004) (plaintiff’s extensive FOIA/Touhy efforts to identify a manufacturer can satisfy due diligence for fictitious‑party relation back)
- Ex parte Nicholson Mfg., Ltd., 182 So.3d 510 (Ala. 2015) (Alabama falsifies relation‑back where plaintiff failed to show due diligence in identifying substituted defendant)
- Ex parte VEL, LLC, 225 So.3d 591 (Ala. 2016) (relation‑back denied where plaintiff did not demonstrate due diligence in identifying the true defendant)