Avco Corp. and Lycoming Engines, leading airplane parts manufacturers, formally urged the North Carolina Supreme Court to reinstate their appeal seeking dismissal of claims related to a fatal 2015 plane crash. The companies argue that the state’s highest court must clarify when interlocutory appeals are appropriate and rectify what they describe as “patently wrong” reasoning by lower courts.
In a new opening brief filed this week, Avco and Lycoming contend that the North Carolina Court of Appeals improperly dismissed their appeal of a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in the liability suit filed by families of four individuals who died in the crash near Atlanta. The companies assert their appeal should have been allowed under North Carolina’s substantial-right doctrine, which permits interlocutory appeals when a party is deprived of a substantial right.
Central to their defense is the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which includes an 18-year statute of repose. The engine involved in the 2015 accident was manufactured in 1978, making the claims against the companies barred by this federal statute. The companies maintain that this statute of repose constitutes a substantial right and that the Court of Appeals’ dismissal conflicts with established legal principles.
“Just like North Carolina’s substantial-right doctrine allows immediate appeal from the denial of other immunities, so too should it permit appeal from repose defenses,” the brief states. The companies criticize the Court of Appeals’ reliance on an outdated analogy between statutes of repose and ordinary statutes of limitation, which they argue contradicts modern jurisprudence.
This filing follows the companies’ initial request for the Supreme Court to hear their case, after the intermediate appellate court issued a stay and dismissed their appeal — a move Avco and Lycoming contend violated procedural rules.
The families of the crash victims have not filed a new brief but previously argued that the appeal dismissal was proper, citing material factual disputes related to alleged withheld information from the Federal Aviation Administration before the crash.
Counsel for both parties have not yet responded to requests for comment.
Legal Representation:
