Fredeking v. Triad Aviation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-612 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | R.R. FREDEKING, II, Plaintiff, v. TRIAD AVIATION, INC., H&H PROPELLER SERVICE, INC. and AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES OF OKLAHOMA, INC. Defendants. |
R.R. FREDEKING, II, Plaintiff,
v.
TRIAD AVIATION, INC., H&H PROPELLER SERVICE, INC. and AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES OF OKLAHOMA, INC. Defendants.
No. 1:20-cv-612
United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
December 27, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR., District Judge.
Before this court is Defendants Triad Aviation, Inc.'s and H&H Propeller Service, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 33.)[1] For the reasons provided herein, Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted as to Plaintiff's first and second claims. Defendants' motion will be denied as to Plaintiff's third claim.
Additionally before this court is Defendants' Motion to Exclude and/or Limit Plaintiff's Expert Testimony. (Doc. 37.)
For the reasons provided herein, Defendants' motion to exclude will be denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This dispute centers around an alleged aircraft failure due to an alleged overspeed event. The record evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the non-moving party, is as follows.
Plaintiff R.R. Fredeking, II is a West Virginia resident. (See First Am. Compl. (Doc. 15) at 1.) Defendants Triad Aviation, Inc. and H&H Propeller Service, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) are North Carolina corporations with their principal places of business in North Carolina.[2] (See id. at 1; see Answer of Defs. Triad Aviation, Inc. and H&H Propeller Service, Inc. (“Defs.' Answer”) (Doc. 17) at 1.)
A. Overhaul of Plaintiff's Plane
Plaintiff owns a “Piper Malibu N567KC, a single engine aircraft powered by a Continental TISIO 550c engine using a variable pitch Hartzell propeller.” (First Am. Compl. (Doc. 15) at 3.) Plaintiff contacted Defendants to discuss service work to
be done on his plane. (See Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 1-2.) On January 2, 2019, Defendants emailed Plaintiff with an estimate for an engine removal, overhaul, and re-installation; total costs for the services approximated $69,500. (See id. at 5-7.) This initial estimate further stated that Defendants' “warranty is 500 hours or one year, and then pro-rated to TBO on parts.” (Id. at 6; id. at 7.) Here, “TBO” means “Time Between Overhauls.” (Ex. C, Othman Rashed Tr. (“Pl.'s Excerpts of Othman Rashed's Dep.”) (Doc. 46) at 4.)
On February 4, 2019, Defendants emailed Plaintiff to inform him that they were “still around 6+ weeks on engine overhauls, but [they] hope that number will be lower by the time [Plaintiff's] aircraft arrives.” (Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 8.)
On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff delivered his plane to Defendants' facility, (see id. at 2), and he signed a “work authorization form” detailing the services Defendants would be providing, (see Ex. 6, Mar. 11, 2019 Work AZ (Doc. 34-6) at 1). Plaintiff also paid a deposit of $32,000 for Defendants' work. (See Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 2.) According to the work authorization form, Defendants were authorized to overhaul the plane's engine, overhaul the plane's propeller and governor, conduct an annual inspection, magnaflux the engine mount, check
the plane for corrosion, and check the seal between the propeller and engine. (See Ex. 6, Mar. 11, 2019 Work AZ (Doc. 34-6) at 1-2; see also Pl.'s Excerpts of Othman Rashed's Dep. (Doc. 46) at 6.)
In completing the service work on Plaintiff's plane, Defendants first removed the engine from the plane. (See Id. at 7.) Then, they inspected the engine and plane, discovering several other issues beyond those listed in the work authorization that required repairs or replacement. (See Ex. 1, Fredeking Depo. (“Defs.' Excerpts of Pl.'s Dep.”) (Doc. 34-1) at 3; see also Pl.'s Excerpts of Othman Rashed's Dep. (Doc. 46) at 7.) Defendants emailed Plaintiff to update him on the newly-discovered issues and to receive authorization for expenses beyond the initial estimate. (See Ex. 8, Apr. 25, 2019 Email (Doc. 34-8) at 1.) Defendant H&H Propeller Service, Inc. also purchased a propeller governor, which Defendants installed on the plane. (See Ex. 9, H&H Propeller Govr Work Order 23302 (Doc. 34-9) at 1.)
As part of the service work, Defendants conducted testing on the plane. (See, e.g., Ex. D (“Pl.'s Excerpts of Richard Diamond Dep.”) (Doc. 44) at 10.) Defendants also drained the plane's engine of oil, installed a new filter, and filled the engine with new oil. (See id.) Additionally, Richard Diamond,
one of Defendants' employees, conducted a ground run of the engine to test the plane for any issues, which included filling the propeller with oil. (See id. at 12.) Defendants used a Triad-created checklist to inspect the plane, rather than a checklist created by any plane parts manufacturers. (See id. at 13-14.)
Ultimately, on August 1, 2019, Defendants updated the plane's logbooks to indicate completion of the service work and to return the plane to service. (See id. at 16-17; see also Ex. 13, Engine Aircraft and Propeller Logbook Entries (Doc. 34-13) at 1-3.)
In total, the service work cost Plaintiff $104, 298.88. (See Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 12.) Hangar costs were $27,872.20. (See id.) The engine overhaul charges were $69,951.05, with $43,840.00 for labor, $18,960 for parts, $5,500.00 for the crankcase, and $1,651.01 for tax. (See Ex. 11, July 8, 2019 Work Order (Doc. 34-11) at 1.) Purchasing the overhauled governor from Aircraft Accessories of Oklahoma cost $2,775.35, as well as $50.35 for freight. (See Ex. 9, H&H Propeller Govr Work Order 23302 (Doc. 34-9) at 1.) The propeller overhaul cost $3,579.01, with $1,467.00 for labor, $1,977.01 for parts, and $135 for materials. (See Ex. 12, H&H Propeller
Governor Work Order 23408 (Doc. 34-12) at 1.) Finally, refueling the plane cost $121.27. (See Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 12.)
B. Alleged Overspeed Events
On July 31, 2019, Defendants emailed Plaintiff to inform him that the service work on his plane was completed. (See Id. at 11.) In that email, they included a detailed invoice for the work, and they requested that Plaintiff reserve several hours for him to conduct a test flight and for a final inspection. (See id.)
On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff sent $72,298.88 to Defendants via bank wire to remit the balance due for the service work. (See id. at 3.) That same day, Plaintiff arrived at Defendants' facility in Burlington, NC to pick up his plane. (See Ex. A, Pl.'s Depo. (“Pl.'s Excerpts of Pl.'s Dep.”) (Doc. 42) at 18.) He requested and received a copy of Defendants' warranty when he arrived. (See id. at 13.) Plaintiff testified that he believed Defendants' warranty was limited to what he had previously received by email-stating that the warranty covered “500 hours or one year.” (Id.) However, the warranty provided to Plaintiff on August 13, 2019 stated:
TRIAD will repair or replace on an exchange basis any engine or part supplied which within the applicable one (1) year or 500 hour period is returned to TRIAD and which upon examination is found to be defective in materials and workmanship. . . .
....
THIS IS A LIMITED WARRANTY. THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER THIS WARRANTY IS LIMITED TO REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT AS SPECIFIED ABOVE. THERE ARE NO OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. SPECIFICALLY, BUT WITHOUT LIMITATION, THERE ARE NO IMPLIED WARRANTIES AS TO MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT WILL TRIAD AVIATION, INC. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY DEFECT IN ANY ENGINE OR PART, ARISING OUT OF THE FAILURE OF ANY ENGINE OR PART TO OPERATE PROPERLY, OR ARISING OUT OF ANY BREACH OF THIS WARRANTY. . . .
(Ex. 14, Warranty (Doc. 34-14) at 1-3 (emphasis in original).)
On August 13 and 14, 2019, Plaintiff performed two test flights while accompanied by Richard Diamond, one of Defendants' employees. (See Pl.'s Excerpts of Pl.'s Dep. (Doc. 42) at 15.) During each of those two test flights, Plaintiff identified several issues needing further repair that Richard Diamond addressed or tried to address. (See id. at 18-20.) Plaintiff performed a brief third test flight. (See id. at 20.) Finally, on August 14, 2019, Plaintiff flew back to Huntington, West Virginia with his wife as a fourth and final test flight. (See id. at 21-22.)
Plaintiff alleges that during his approach to Huntington, approximately five to six miles from the runway, Plaintiff's plane experienced an overspeed event of approximately “4,000 RPMs.” (See id. at 24-25.) Plaintiff continued descending towards Huntington, and closer to the runway, he alleges that a
second overspeed event occurred. (See id. at 26.) Finally, while Plaintiff was taxiing on the runway, he alleges that a third overspeed event occurred. (See id. at 27.) There remains a genuine dispute of material fact on these overspeed events, as Defendants dispute whether any overspeed events occurred at all. (See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Defs. Triad Aviation Inc. and H&H Propeller Service, Inc.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.' Summ. J. Br.”) (Doc. 34) at 1.)
Plaintiff explained that he was informed by the engine and propeller manufacturers that neither the plane, nor the engine, were airworthy due to the overspeed events. (See Pl.'s Excerpts of Pl.'s Dep. (Doc. 42) at 29; see Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 3.) Plaintiff was unable to receive a ferry permit from the Federal Aviation Authority to have the plane flown back to Defendants' facility. (See Ex. B, Pl.'s Aff. (Doc. 43) at 3.)
On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff mailed Defendants a letter raising his concerns around Defendants' service work and to inform them of the overspeed events. (See Pl.'s Excerpts of Pl.'s Dep. (Doc. 42) at 33.) Plaintiff contacted Othman Rashed, one of Defendants' employees, about the overspeed events; Plaintiff testified that Mr. Rashed required Plaintiff to bring the plane or engine back to Defendants' facility in North Carolina for them to perform any repairs. (See id. at 5.)
Richard...
To continue reading
Request your trial