417 P.3d 1206
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- 2007 crash of a 1977 Beech A-36 killed five, including three Lunn children; William Lunn sued Hawker Beechcraft for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, alleging an inverted main fuel strainer caused the accident.
- Hawker moved for summary judgment asserting GARA's 18-year statute of repose (General Aviation Revitalization Act) barred claims against aircraft manufacturers for parts originally installed more than 18 years before the accident.
- In 2011 the trial court granted summary judgment for Hawker; Lunn moved to reconsider in 2016, citing new case law (Sikkelee line) and newly discovered evidence from Teledyne purporting to show Hawker issued a placard/service bulletin and withheld an internal memo predicting 50% noncompliance with a fix.
- Lunn argued two GARA exceptions tolled/restarted repose: (1) the "rolling provision" for replacement or added "new parts" (claiming placard/service bulletins or flight-manual omission qualified), and (2) the fraud/misrepresentation exception for concealment from the FAA (pointing to Hawker's internal memo).
- The trial court granted reconsideration procedurally but denied substantive relief; on appeal the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the summary judgment de novo and the reconsideration denial for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GARA's 18-year statute of repose bars Lunn's claims | GARA does not preempt state-law design-defect claims per Sikkelee; statute of repose should not bar claims here | GARA bars actions where the claimed defective part was original and more than 18 years old | Reversed? No. Court held GARA's repose bars the claims because repose ran and no tolling/exception applies |
| Whether Hawker's placard/service bulletin/maintenance revision triggered the GARA "rolling provision" (i.e., constituted a "new part") | The placard/service bulletin (and omission from republished flight manual) restarted the 18-year period | Placards, service bulletins, and maintenance-manual revisions are not "parts" for GARA; flight manual amendments not implicated here | Held: placard and service bulletins are not "parts"; omission from flight manual not established; rolling provision not triggered |
| Whether omission of placard from flight manual made it a "new part" | Placard should have been included as flight-manual amendment (flight manuals are "parts") so repose restarted | Placard instructed mechanics (maintenance), not a flight-manual amendment; maintenance manuals are not "parts" that restart GARA | Held: placard was maintenance instruction, not a flight-manual amendment; flight manual not implicated here; rolling provision not triggered |
| Whether the fraud/misrepresentation exception to GARA applies (Hawker withheld internal memo predicting 50% noncompliance) | Hawker knowingly concealed material information (internal memo) from FAA, so repose inapplicable | Hawker repeatedly notified FAA of the fuel-strainer problem; no concealment or misrepresentation that would satisfy GARA exception | Held: No genuine dispute that Hawker concealed material information to trigger fraud exception; trial court reasonably found exception inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (distinguishes repose from statute of limitations and explains repose bars cause before it arises)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 100 (Okla. 2006) (summary relief issues reviewed de novo)
- Million v. Million, 292 P.3d 21 (Okla. 2012) (burden on defendant to prove affirmative defense; once shown plaintiff must prove tolling/exception)
- Andrew v. Depani-Sparkes, 396 P.3d 210 (Okla. 2017) (interlocutory orders can be reviewed on appeal from subsequent final judgment)
- Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3d Cir. 2016) (federal law does not automatically preempt state design-defect claims, but preemption follows if GARA repose has run)
- Caldwell v. Enstrom Helicopter Corp., 230 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2000) (flight manual is an integral "part" for purposes of GARA rolling provision)
- Colgan Air, Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 507 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2007) (maintenance manual revisions are not "parts" that trigger GARA's rolling provision)
- Crouch v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 720 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2013) (revisions to manuals do not constitute replacement parts for GARA)