PA Supreme Court Extends GARA Protections To Aircraft Designers And Type Certificate Holders
Under the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 ("GARA"), claims for death, injury and property damages involving certain types of aircraft asserted against manufacturers are generally barred if an accident occurs more than eighteen (18) years after the delivery of the aircraft to the first purchaser or lessee if delivered directly from the manufacturer; or the date of first delivery of the aircraft to a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing such aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. § 40101. GARA, however, contains a "rolling provision" that while preserving foreclosure of actions against manufacturers prescribes a new eighteen (18) year period of time with respect to any new/replacement components that begins to run upon the date of completion of the replacement or addition. See id.
In the matter Prigden, et al. v. Parker Hannafin Corporation, et al., 588 PA. 405, 905 A.2d 422 (2007), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was called upon to interpret whether the aforementioned protections afforded to "manufacturers" of aircraft also extend to aircraft type certificate holders and aircraft designers. Type certificates are issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and authorize an entity to manufacture a particular aircraft or engine after an applicant establishes that the type design which includes drawings, specifications and data necessary to insure airworthiness meet applicable design and testing standards. In Prigden, Plaintiffs did not dispute that the original engine assembly was in installed on the subject aircraft more than eighteen years prior to the mishap but did argue that the crash was the result of failures of replacement components that were replaced and overhauled within eighteen years of the accident. See id. In their action, Plaintiffs further argued that the type certificate holder for the engine model installed on the aircraft was not entitled to GARA repose protections because even though they did not supply or install the replacement components, they "supplied specifications upon which replacement components were selected and installed…and marketed such parts under [their] own classification and part number. See id. As such, Plaintiffs argued the type certificate holders were not entitled to GARA protections that are provided to "manufacturers" pursuant to GARA's rolling provisions. See id.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately rejected the trial court's distinction between liability asserted against a manufacturer "in its capacity as manufacturer" that is otherwise entitled to GARA protections and designers and/or type certificate holders which the trial court would not accord such protections. Upon legislative review and interpretation, that Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that aircraft designers and type certificate holders are essential prerequisites to "manufacturing" in the aviation industry. See id. Rejecting Plaintiffs' form over substance argument, the Court's holding was tailored to the role that designers and type certificate holders play in the aviation industry as opposed to the "status" of the entity involved. To rule otherwise, the Court held, would undermine the federal scheme that was crafted to relieve the aviation industry of the burden of "long-tail" liability. The Court continued to reject Plaintiff's alternate theory that Section 400 of the Second Restatement of Torts would provide an alternate theory of recovery premised upon a design defect claim as so doing would also displace GARA's period of repose. The Court, however, did preserve Plaintiff's right to seek recovery pursuant to exceptions to the repose period that appear in GARA by failing to rule upon such theories noting such issues were not previously decided by the lower court and were not then properly before the Court.
