United States: Third Circuit To Address Effect Of Type Certification On Product Liability Claims And FAA Preemption’s Applicability To General Aviation Product Liability Claims

After nearly seven years, and a tortured history in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, two issues in Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp. are before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals: 1) Is an FAA grant of a type certificate conclusive evidence that the design of the certificated part met the standard of care?; and 2) Does federal preemption as outlined in Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999), apply in a general aviation products liability context? In the decision from which this appeal arises, the district court, somewhat surprisingly, held that the issuance of a type certificate for an engine was sufficient proof of compliance with federal design regulations and, despite acknowledgement that Abdullah's applicability in this context leaves gaps in the regulatory scheme, did not disturb its earlier decision to apply Abdullah in the general aviation context.

On appeal, plaintiff-appellant is arguing that the district court's holding regarding the type certificate amounts to blanket immunity for the certificate holder and that Abdullah's preemption holding, which is that the federal government has preempted the field of aviation safety, should be read narrowly to pertain only to commercial operations. Plaintiff-appellee Lycoming argues in opposition that 1) allowing a jury to find a violation of the standards of care embodied in the federal regulations where the FAA has previously issued a type certificate confirming compliance with those regulations would circumvent the standards themselves; and 2) the design and certification of aircraft components falls squarely within the entire field of air safety as defined in Abdullah. Plaintiff-appellant may file a reply brief by April 13, after which oral argument will be scheduled. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., No. 4:07-cv-00886, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126204 (M.D. Pa. Sept.10, 2014), appeal pending Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., No. 14-4193 (3d Cir.).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.