Facts: Following the deaths of seven people in the crash of a Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft in Mexico, respondent Kenneth Burton, the personal representative of the decedents’ estates, brought a wrongful death action against petitioner Twin Commander Aircraft, L.L.C., the holder of the type certificate of the Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft, in the Superior Court for King County. The trial court granted summary judgment for Twin Commander Aircraft, ruling that although Twin Commander Aircraft had not manufactured the aircraft involved in the crash it is, having acquired the type certificate of the Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft, the manufacturer for purposes of the General Aviation Revitalization Act (49 U.S.C. §40101) and therefore immune from liability given that more than eighteen years elapsed between the delivery of the aircraft involved and the crash. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that material questions of fact exist as to Twin Commander Aircraft’s status as the manufacturer of the aircraft involved in the crash for purposes of the General Aviation Revitalization Act and as to whether Twin Commander Aircraft misled the Federal Aviation Administration in its investigation of other crashes involving Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft and is therefore not entitled to the General Aviation Revitalization Act’s statute of repose. Twin Commander Aircraft appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Is Twin Commander Aircraft, as the holder of the type certificate of the Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft, the manufacturer of the aircraft involved in the crash for purposes of the General Aviation Revitalization Act?

Did Twin Commander Aircraft mislead the Federal Aviation Administration in its investigation of other crashes involving Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft?

Conclusion: Chief Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s granting of summary judgment for Twin Commander Aircraft, concluding that no material issue of fact exists as to Twin Commander Aircraft’s status as the manufacturer of the aircraft for purposes of the General Aviation Revitalization Act given that the holder of an aircraft’s type certificate is the only entity authorized to manufacture the aircraft and the only entity responsible for reporting any failures, defects, or malfunctions associated with the aircraft. The Court also found that no material issue of fact exists as to whether Twin Commander Aircraft misled the Federal Aviation Administration in its investigation of other crashes involving Twin Commander 690 Series aircraft insofar as the evidence presented in support of this assertion merely indicates that Twin Commander Aircraft was aware of a potential defect and cooperated with the Federal Aviation Administration in its investigation. Thus, the Court held that Twin Commander Aircraft is immune from liability under the General Aviation Revitalization Act as the crash occurred more than eighteen years after the delivery of the aircraft.

Docket No. 83030-4 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 60163-6)

Petitioner: Twin Commander Aircraft, L.L.C.

(Counsel: Clark Reed Nichols, Mary Pedersen Gaston, Rebecca S. Engrav, and Paul Spencer Graves)

Respondent: Kenneth Burton

(Counsel: Kerry Vincent Kovarik, Thomas William Bingham, Jeffrey Carl Jones, and Gene Hagood)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Twin Commander Aircraft, L.L.C. (Petitioner)

Vote: 6-3

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Majority)

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens
(Dissent)