Sikkelee and Preemption in Aviation Product Liability Cases

Updated: Mar 26, 2026

What Sikkelee Clarified About Preemption in Aviation Product Liability Cases

On April 19, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a major ruling on the scope of federal preemption in aviation product liability litigation in Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corporation, et al., 822 F.3d 680 (3d Cir. 2016), a case handled by Katzman Lampert & Stoll.

The court rejected the argument that aircraft manufacturers are categorically shielded from liability merely because a product received FAA approval or a type certificate. In doing so, the Third Circuit clarified the reach of Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999), and held that there is no implied field preemption of state-law aircraft product defect claims.

The Third Circuit stated that “the Federal Aviation Act, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, and the regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration reflect that Congress did not intend to preempt aircraft product liability claims in a categorical way.” Sikkelee, 822 F.3d at 683.

The court further explained that “neither the [Federal Aviation] Act nor the issue of a type certificate per se preempts all aircraft design and manufacturing claims. Rather, subject to traditional principles of conflict preemption, including in connection with the specifications expressly set forth in a given type certificate, aircraft product liability cases like Appellant’s may proceed using a state standard of care.” Id.

That distinction matters. The ruling confirmed that FAA certification does not, by itself, eliminate state-law design defect and manufacturing defect claims against aviation manufacturers. Instead, those claims remain subject to ordinary conflict-preemption analysis rather than blanket field preemption. For a broader discussion of how certification and compliance arguments fit into this doctrine, see our Certification and Compliance in Aviation Preemption page.

The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s contrary ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. A copy of the Third Circuit’s opinion can be found here.

The Supreme Court Left the Third Circuit’s Ruling in Place

On November 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied AVCO Corp.’s petition for a writ of certiorari in AVCO Corp. v. Sikkelee, 137 S. Ct. 495 (2016). A copy of the certiorari denial can be found here.

As a result, the Third Circuit’s decision in Sikkelee remained in place and became one of the most important modern appellate decisions addressing federal preemption in aviation product liability litigation.

Why Sikkelee Still Matters

For aviation lawyers, manufacturers, referring attorneys, and journalists covering aviation litigation, Sikkelee remains a foundational case. It draws an important line between federal regulation of aviation safety and the continued viability of state-law product liability claims involving aircraft design and manufacturing defects.

That makes the decision especially important in cases involving alleged defects in engines, fuel systems, components, and other aircraft products where defendants argue that FAA approval alone forecloses suit.

For a broader discussion of this doctrine and its role in aviation product liability litigation, see our Federal Preemption in Aviation Product Liability page.

Consultation Regarding Aviation Accident Investigations

Families, referring attorneys, and journalists sometimes seek legal consultation or technical insight regarding aviation accidents and investigative issues discussed in these analyses. Inquiries may be directed to Katzman, Lampert & Stoll at the link below.

Contact the Firm

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE
Katzman Lampert & Stoll
121 N. Wayne Ave. # 205
Wayne, PA 19087

E-mail: Click to use our Contact Form
Toll-Free: (866) 309-6097
Phone: (610) 686-9686
Fax: (610) 686-9687

Copyright 1998-2026 The Law Firm of Katzman Lampert & Stoll | Privacy Notice | Disclaimer | Site by: Lucidpage