Representative GARA Litigation and Reported Decisions

The firm has litigated multiple matters in which aircraft manufacturers asserted defenses under the General Aviation Revitalization Act.

In litigation involving a Cessna 421B aircraft, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the statutory misrepresentation exception under GARA in Hinkle v. The Cessna Aircraft Co., 2004 WL 2413768 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 2004), holding that whether the manufacturer knowingly misrepresented material information to the Federal Aviation Administration during type certification presented a question of fact for the jury.

In Rickert v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 929 F. Supp. 380 (D. Wyo. 1996), the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming considered GARA in connection with certification and flight-into-known-icing issues involving the MU-2B aircraft. The court permitted discovery concerning alleged misrepresentations to the FAA and declined to resolve disputed factual issues relating to certification disclosures at the summary judgment stage.

For the full citation and source link to Rickert v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., see our Federal Appellate & Reported Aviation Decisions page under Reported Aviation Product Liability Decisions.

Additional trial court decisions have addressed GARA’s “gatekeeping” function, the statute’s interaction with state product liability claims, and the rolling provision applicable to replacement component parts. Courts have recognized that allegations of misrepresentation or concealment during certification may require factual development before dispositive rulings can be made.