Sikkelee v. AVCO Corp.
268 F. Supp. 3d 660
M.D. Penn.2017Background
- 1969: Lycoming manufactured the O-320-D2C engine (with Marvel-Schebler MA-4SPA carburetor) and shipped it to Beagle; the engine was stored and not used until 1998.
- 1998: Engine removed from storage, overhauled by third parties, and installed in a 1976 Cessna 172N (not originally certificated for that engine); subsequent normal service until 2004.
- 2004: After a lightning event, Triad removed the carburetor and sent it to Kelly Aerospace, which performed a complete overhaul using its own PMA-approved aftermarket parts (a mix of components from different sources).
- 2005: After ~400 flight hours post-overhaul, the Cessna crashed after takeoff; plaintiff alleges loosened throttle-body-to-float-bowl screws (gasket, screws, lock washers) caused engine power loss. Plaintiff settled with Kelly for $2 million.
- Procedural history: Case filed 2007; district court (Brann) previously held FAA field preemption; Third Circuit reversed that breadth but remanded to assess conflict preemption (Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive). On remand, Lycoming moved for summary judgment arguing (1) it cannot be liable for independent aftermarket modifications and (2) plaintiff’s state tort claims are conflict preempted by FAA regulations.
- Court findings: Judge Brann grants summary judgment to Lycoming on two independent grounds—(a) Lycoming’s connection to the allegedly defective carburetor was too remote (aftermarket overhaul by Kelly using its PMA parts), and (b) Pennsylvania tort claims are conflict preempted because FAA regulations made it impossible for Lycoming to unilaterally implement the design changes plaintiff sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict preemption: can state tort duties coexist with FAA requirements? | Sikkelee: state tort duties could require Lycoming to have designed/required a different fastening or gasket system; FAA approval not decisive. | Lycoming: FAA rules require FAA (or delegated DER) approval for any type-design or major/minor type-design changes; unilateral compliance with state law was impossible. | Held: Claims are conflict preempted under PLIVA/Bartlett framework—Lycoming could not unilaterally satisfy state law without violating FAA approval regime. |
| Liability for third‑party aftermarket modifications | Sikkelee: Lycoming (type‑certificate holder) may be liable because its type designs were the relevant baseline and it had indirect influence. | Lycoming: Kelly independently overhauled and replaced carburetor with PMA parts without Lycoming’s knowledge or control; Lycoming’s "hands" were not present. | Held: Summary judgment for Lycoming—connection too remote; aftermarket PMA overhaul by Kelly was an independent intervening act. |
| Strict liability / defective when sold; foreseeability of alteration | Sikkelee: defect in design/components caused crash; Lycoming should have foreseen and prevented such failures. | Lycoming: engine left factory safe in 1969; long storage, reinstallation in non‑certificated aircraft, and later overhaul/parts replacement were unforeseeable substantial changes. | Held: No genuine dispute that engine was not defective when sold and subsequent alterations were not reasonably foreseeable—strict liability claim fails. |
| Negligence / proximate cause | Sikkelee: Lycoming breached duty causing harm. | Lycoming: proximate cause broken by independent aftermarket overhaul, long lapse/time, and multiple intervening events; negligence claim lacks causation. | Held: Negligence claim fails for lack of proximate cause; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir.) (historical Third Circuit preemption precedent considered and later limited)
- Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3d Cir. 2016) (appellate decision reversing broad field‑preemption holding and remanding to assess conflict preemption)
- PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011) (agency approval requirement can make state‑law duties impossible to satisfy; conflict preemption applies)
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) (design‑defect tort claims preempted where federal regime prohibited unilateral design changes)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (distinguished: brand‑name drug CBE exception permitting unilateral label changes; Court required clear‑evidence showing when exception applies)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court framing of strict liability and §402A principles applied)
- Varig Airlines v. United States, 467 U.S. 797 (1984) (FAA uses DERs as surrogates in certification process; agency control emphasized)
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001) (state claims that intrude on federal regulatory scheme are preempted)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards invoked)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (conflict/obstacle preemption analysis and federal interest in uniform regulation)