638 F.Supp.3d 838
N.D. Ill.2022Background
- Two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes (Lion Air JT610, Oct. 2018; Ethiopian ET302, Mar. 2019) led to a worldwide grounding of the MAX fleet.
- Plaintiffs are commercial airline pilots who were MAX-certified (via Boeing-prepared CBT/FCOM training materials) but were not on the crashed flights; they allege Boeing defectively designed the MCAS and concealed its existence and associated training information.
- Plaintiffs sued Boeing for strict products liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking economic damages for lost flying time and wages arising from the grounding.
- Boeing moved to dismiss; the court accepted plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true for the motion but evaluated legal sufficiency.
- The court dismissed all claims: proximate causation was lacking (pilots’ losses were remote/derivative of third-party crashes), the economic loss doctrine barred negligence/strict liability for purely economic losses, no special/fiduciary relationship supported fraudulent concealment, and fraud claims failed for lack of reliance/but-for causation and failure to plead with particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate causation | Boeing’s defective design and concealment caused crashes → grounding → pilots’ lost income | Chain is too attenuated; plaintiffs’ harms are derivative of third‑party accidents and too remote | Dismissed: proximate causation lacking; derivative economic harms are too remote |
| Economic loss doctrine (strict liability & negligence) | Plaintiffs seek recovery for lost wages; assert exceptions (e.g., sudden occurrence, special relationship) | Moorman bars purely economic loss in tort absent physical injury or applicable exception; Boeing not in business of supplying information | Dismissed Counts I–II under Moorman; plaintiffs allege only economic loss and exceptions do not apply |
| Fraudulent concealment | Boeing intentionally concealed MCAS and safety info; duty to disclose arises from Boeing’s role in training | No fiduciary or special relationship with pilots; no duty to disclose to third‑party employees | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to allege a special/fiduciary relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation | Boeing misrepresented MAX safety in manuals, bulletins, training, and public statements, inducing certification | Plaintiffs did not plausibly plead justifiable reliance or but‑for causation; many certifications predated alleged statements; fraud not pleaded with Rule 9(b) particularity | Dismissed: failure to plead reliance/but‑for causation and failure to satisfy Rule 9(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Nat’l Tank Co., 435 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. 1982) (establishes Illinois economic loss doctrine barring tort recovery for solely economic losses absent physical harm or exceptions)
- Dundee Cement Co. v. Chem. Lab’ys Inc., 712 F.2d 1166 (7th Cir. 1983) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff’s claimed economic losses were remote and derivative)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (proximate‑cause limits bar suits for harms that are merely derivative of injuries to third parties)
- In re Kinsman Transit Co., 388 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968) (limits on liability where downstream economic injuries are too attenuated)
- Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru, 764 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1985) (refusing recovery for pure economic loss absent physical injury or special circumstances)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (courts generally limit recovery to immediate harms and avoid open‑ended liability)