Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

• Citation: 907 F.3d 701
• Decision Date: 25 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-3006,17-3006
• Parties: Jill SIKKELEE, individually and as personal representative of the estate of David Sikkelee, deceased, Appellant v. PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION; Precision Airmotive LLC, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Precision Airmotive Corporation; Burns International Services Corporation, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Borg-Warner Corporation, and Marvel-Schebler, a Division of Borg-Warner Corporation; Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, a Division of Avco Corporation; AVCO Corporation; Kelly Aerospace, Inc., individually and Joint Venturer and as Successor-in-Interest; Kelly Aerospace Power Systems, Inc., individually and as Joint Venturer and Successor-in-Interest, also known as Electrosystems, Inc., also known as Confuel, Inc.; Electrosystems, Inc., individually and as Joint Venturer and as Successor-in-Interest, also known as Consolidated Fuel Systems, Inc., also known as Confuel, Inc.; Consolidated Fuel Systems, Inc., also known as Confuel, Inc.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

907 F.3d 701

Jill SIKKELEE, individually and as personal representative of the estate of David Sikkelee, deceased, Appellant

v.PRECISION AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION; Precision Airmotive LLC, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Precision Airmotive Corporation; Burns International Services Corporation, individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Borg-Warner Corporation, and Marvel-Schebler, a Division of Borg-Warner Corporation; Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, a Division of Avco Corporation; AVCO Corporation; Kelly Aerospace, Inc., individually and Joint Venturer and as Successor-in-Interest; Kelly Aerospace Power Systems, Inc., individually and as Joint Venturer and Successor-in-Interest, also known as Electrosystems, Inc., also known as Confuel, Inc.; Electrosystems, Inc., individually and as Joint Venturer and as Successor-in-Interest, also known as Consolidated Fuel Systems, Inc., also known as Confuel, Inc.; Consolidated Fuel Systems, Inc., also known as Confuel, Inc.

No. 17-3006

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued: July 11, 2018

Filed: October 25, 2018

David I. Katzman, Bradley Stoll, Katzman Lampert & Stoll, 100 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 130, Troy, MI 48084, Tejinder Singh [ARGUED], Goldstein & Russell, 7475 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 850, Bethesda, MD 20814, Counsel for Appellant

Catherine B. Slavin, Gordon & Rees, 1717 Arch Street, Suite 610, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Amy M. Saharia, Kannon K. Shanmugam [ARGUED], Williams & Connolly, 725 12th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, Counsel for Appellees Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division and AVCO Corp.

Kathleen L. Nastri, Jeffrey R. White, American Association for Justice, 777 6th Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20001, Counsel for Amicus Appellant American Association for Justice

Daryl E. Christopher, Schmidt Kramer, 209 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, Counsel for Amicus Appellant Pennsylvania Association for Justice

Lauren L. Haertlein, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 1400 K Street N.W., Suite 801, Washington, D.C. 20005, Counsel for Amicus Appellee General Aviation Manufacturers Association

Before: SHWARTZ, ROTH, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

David Sikkelee died in a plane crash, and his wife, Plaintiff Jill Sikkelee, brought state-law strict liability and negligence claims against the engine's manufacturer, AVCO Corporation, and its Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division ("Lycoming"), among other defendants. Sikkelee alleges that the engine has a design defect. We previously held that Sikkelee's state-law claims are not barred based on the doctrine of field preemption, but we remanded to allow the District Court to consider whether they are barred under conflict preemption. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp. (Sikkelee II), 822 F.3d 680 (3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, AVCO Corp. v. Sikkelee, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 495, 196 L.Ed.2d 433 (2016). The District Court concluded the claims are conflict-preempted and that, even if they were not, Lycoming is entitled to summary judgment on Sikkelee's strict liability and negligence claims based on Pennsylvania law. Sikkelee v. AVCO Corp. (Sikkelee III), 268 F.Supp.3d 660 (M.D. Pa. 2017). The Court also revisited an earlier ruling and granted summary judgment in favor of Lycoming on Sikkelee's claim that Lycoming violated 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 because it failed to notify the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") of the alleged defect. Sikkelee v. AVCO Corp. (Sikkelee IV), No. 4:07-CV-00886, 2017 WL 3310953 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2017).

We conclude that the District Court erred in concluding Sikkelee's claims are conflict-preempted because Lycoming has not produced clear evidence that the FAA would not have allowed it to change the engine's design as set forth in the type certificate. The Court also erred in granting Lycoming summary judgment on Sikkelee's strict liability and negligence claims because there are genuine disputes of material fact concerning, among other things, causation. However, it properly granted summary judgment on her failure-to-notify-the-FAA claim. Thus, we will reverse the Court's order granting summary judgment on conflict-preemption and state-law grounds, affirm its order granting Lycoming's motion for reconsideration on the failure-to-notify claim, and remand for further proceedings.

I

A¹

In July 2005, David Sikkelee was piloting a Cessna 172N aircraft (the "Cessna" or "aircraft") when it crashed shortly after taking off from Transylvania County Airport in Brevard, North Carolina. He was killed in the crash. At that time, the aircraft had a Textron Lycoming O-320-D2C engine (the "engine"). Sikkelee alleges the aircraft lost power and crashed due to a defect in the design of the engine and its carburetor—which, when working properly, regulates the mixture of fuel and air entering the engine's cylinders.

In 1966, the FAA issued Lycoming a type certificate for the engine. A type certificate certifies that the design of the aircraft or its part performs properly and satisfies federal aviation regulations. Lycoming's engine's type certificate included approval of an MA-4SPA carburetor, which was manufactured by a different company, Marvel-Schebler. The MA-4SPA carburetor consists of two halves—the float bowl, on bottom, which contains fuel, and the throttle body, on top, which meters the flow of air and fuel to the cylinders—and the two halves are joined by four hex-head bolts and lock-tab washers. The FAA initially required safety wire to be used to prevent the bolts on MA-4SPA carburetors from loosening. 29 Fed. Reg. 16,317, 16,318 (Dec. 5, 1964). Lycoming asked the agency to remove that requirement and instead allow the use of hex screws and lock tabs, and the agency permitted it to do so. Lycoming implemented the change with an engineering change order, which was signed by Lycoming's Designated Engineering Representative ("DER").² The company subsequently included the lock tab washer in its design and maintenance instructions.

Lycoming manufactured the engine at issue here in 1969 in Pennsylvania and shipped it to an aircraft company in England the same year. At that time, it was equipped with a Marvel-Schebler MA-4SPA carburetor.

Lycoming has been aware the carburetor's screws were not completely effective in holding together the float bowl and throttle body. The FAA sent Lycoming a letter in 1971, listing sixteen incidents of the screws on the Marvel-Schebler carburetor loosening. The FAA sent another letter in 1972 referring to these incidents again and met with Lycoming representatives to advise the company that reports of loosening screws were still being received. Indeed, by that time, the FAA had forwarded to Lycoming forty-five "Malfunction or Defect Reports on this subject." App. 557. The agency requested Lycoming to "review these reports and provide comments to this office as to any action you may propose that will help in alleviating this problem." Id. The same year, the FAA also issued a memorandum stating that "Marvel Schebler carburetors are a part of the engine type design and are not approved separately. The type certificate holder is responsible for the type design and also the correction of service problems." App. 579.

Lycoming responded to these reports in 1973 with Service Bulletin 366 ("SB366"). SB366 acknowledged that "[i]nstances have been reported of leakage through the gasket between the bowl assembly and throttle body of the carburetor, evidenced by fuel stains in the area of the leak. Leakage of this type is accompanied by loose screws that attach the bowl and throttle body." App. 567. Lycoming advised that during inspection, the screws should be checked for tightness, and if there appeared to be leakage and the screws were loose, the bowl should be removed, the gasket should be replaced, and the screws should be retightened.³

Service records show that the problem persisted. Owners and mechanics reported to Lycoming loose screws, leaking carburetors, and poor engine performance. In 2004, Precision Airmotive LLC ("Precision"), which acquired the Marvel-Schebler carburetor line, wrote Lycoming two letters regarding the carburetor's screws and leaking. As described in its first letter, in reviewing the FAA's service difficulty report database, Precision "identified a trend": "[o]ne of the items that has been reported on multiple occasions is loose bowl to body attach screws on the MA-4SPA model carburetor," and "a significant percentage of the incidents were on the Cessna 172 aircraft," App. 581, the type of aircraft Sikkelee was flying. Precision identified no such trends with other carburetor models, or with the MA-4SPA on other aircraft. In its next letter, Precision confirmed the same trend and, although reports of loose bowl screws had not increased since the 1970s, "there continue[d] to be reports of loose screws on certain carburetors, particularly those used on O-320 engines in Cessna 172 aircraft." App. 582. Precision recommended that Lycoming identify the circumstances that allowed screws to loosen and "evaluate[ ]" "the pros and cons of a different attachment system." App. 583.

The engine in Sikkelee's plane was in storage until 1998, when it was installed into the Cessna in accordance with the type certificate.⁴ The engine was removed from the aircraft in 2004, after the aircraft was struck by lightning, and defendant Triad Aviation, Inc. overhauled the engine. As part of the overhaul, defendants Kelly Aerospace, Inc. and Kelly Aerospace Power Systems, Inc. (together, "Kelly") "completely rebuilt or overhauled" the carburetor and shipped it back to Triad for installation. App. 616. Kelly held both an FAA repair station certificate, which permitted Kelly to overhaul Marvin-Schebler carburetors, and a parts manufacturer approval ("PMA") from the FAA, which permitted Kelly to manufacture certain carburetor replacement parts. The carburetor was rebuilt...