Reported / Citable
Background
Plaintiffs sued manufacturers after a Huntington Beach Police Department helicopter crashed. Their products-liability claims targeted an aircraft and components old enough to implicate the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which generally bars covered claims 18 years after delivery.
They argued that a police helicopter operating as a public aircraft should fall outside GARA. The Central District of California dismissed the cases, and the consolidated appeals asked whether certification and the aircraft’s governmental use changed the federal repose analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. GARA’s definition turns on whether a type or airworthiness certificate was issued and on the statutory operating characteristics, not on whether certification was legally required or whether a public agency owned and used the aircraft.
Because the helicopter met the statutory definition and the claims were filed after the repose period, the federal bar applied. The panel rejected the contention that voluntary certification improperly allowed private parties to expand federal law; the result followed from Congress’s chosen text.
Key Takeaways
- GARA is a statute of repose, cutting off covered claims after 18 years even if an injury occurs later.
- Government ownership or public-safety use does not itself remove a certified aircraft from GARA.
- Counsel should determine certification, delivery dates, passenger capacity, and flight purpose immediately after an aviation accident.
- State-law products theories cannot avoid a federal repose bar merely by emphasizing the aircraft’s public function.
Why It Matters
For California aviation litigation, the ruling makes aircraft certification records and delivery history potentially case-dispositive. Plaintiffs and manufacturers should evaluate GARA before investing heavily in merits discovery.