U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in GARA Case
Decision Bars Negligence Claims Based on Failure to Update Aircraft Service Manual
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7, 2024, denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Schiewe v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,1 which sought review of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's holding that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA)2 completely barred plaintiffs' negligence claims against an aircraft manufacturer for failing to update and include certain installation instructions in its maintenance manual. The denial of review is significant, as the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision is aligned with the majority of courts finding that claims based on allegedly inadequate service manuals remain subject to GARA's statute of repose.
Background
The plaintiffs, two pilots who survived an on-board fire and crash landing of a single-engine Cessna aircraft, argued that the September 2010 incident was caused by a missing cap on a terminal lug on the hydraulic pump power pack. While the service manual showed a cap covering the lug, the manual lacked installation instructions regarding the cap. The pilots sued for Cessna's negligent failure to revise the aircraft's service manual to include such instructions.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court had affirmed the Tulsa County District Court's grant of summary judgment to Cessna, which had found that GARA's 18-year statute of repose barred plaintiffs' claims, as the aircraft was delivered to the first buyer in 1980 – 30 years prior to the accident. Since selling the aircraft, Cessna had not serviced nor provided any maintenance work to the aircraft nor supplied any new component system, subassembly or part for the hydraulic power pack.
Key Holdings Stand
With the denial of certiorari, several significant holdings from the decision will remain in place. First, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that because Cessna created and maintained its service manual "in its capacity as a manufacturer," GARA's statute of repose applied per its express terms and barred plaintiffs' claims.
Moreover, while a service manual is not explicitly listed within the definition of what falls within the scope of GARA's "limitation period" (i.e., aircraft, aircraft component, systems, subassemblies and other parts), the court found that the manual is still contemplated as a part or component of the aircraft.3 To follow the plaintiffs' interpretation and exclude it from GARA's reach would create a continuing duty on the part of an aircraft manufacturer to check and revise service manuals for older aircraft long after the duty based on the aircraft or any new part was extinguished.4 This would be contrary to the purpose of GARA and allow a back door to sue a manufacturer for a design flaw based on the failure of the service manuals to correct the alleged flaw.
Lastly, the court noted that any claim based on Cessna's failure to add the new part to the manual back in 1983 (more than 18 years prior to the crash) would fail because the statute of repose ran with the part itself and prohibited claims after Ju
Notes
1 546 P.3d 234 (Okla. 2024), pet. for cert. denied, No. 23-1305 (Oct. 7, 2024).
2 49 U.S.C. § 40101, note.
3 In Cessna's response to the petition for certiorari, it argued that it was unnecessary to address whether the maintenance manual should be treated as a "part" for purposes of the "rolling provision." No new component, system, subassembly or other part was provided after delivery of the aircraft. Accordingly, the only issue to decide was whether Cessna published its manual in its capacity as a manufacturer – which it did.
4 Here, the alleged new part, i.e., the cap, was added within a few years of delivery and added to the parts catalog on June 30, 1983.