Sky Jet, M.G., Inc. v. Elliott Aviation, Inc.
Decision Date | 24 February 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 15 C 8113 |
Parties | SKY JET, M.G., INC., Plaintiff, v. ELLIOTT AVIATION, INC. and ELLIOTT AVIATION OF THE QUAD CITIES, INC., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Sky Jet M.G., Inc. ("Sky Jet") sued Defendants, Elliott Aviation, Inc. ("Elliott") and Elliott Aviation of the Quad Cities, Inc. ("Quad Cities") (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleging negligence and breach of contract against Elliott (Counts I and III, respectively) and negligence against Quad Cities (Count II). After several months of discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on Count III and partial summary judgment on Counts I and II [ECF No. 39].
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count III is granted in part and denied in part. Sky Jet's warranty claim is time-barred, but it may pursue a breach-of-contract claim for damages in excess of the repair or replacement value of the left landing gear. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I based on the Contract's negligence disclaimer is granted in part and denied in part. The Contract limits liability for negligence but the facts do not establish, as a matter of law, that Sky Jet's recovery is limited to repair or replacement of the left landing gear. The Court denies Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I and II to the extent it is based on the absence of extra-contractual duties to Sky Jet. The undisputed facts do not show that Quad Cities was a party to the Contract or is otherwise entitled to its negligence liability disclaimer. Nor do the facts speak clearly as to Elliott's freedom from extra-contractual liability for Quad Cities' or its own potentially tortious conduct.
Sky Jet offers private aircraft charters throughout Quebec, Ontario, and the United States. (ECF No. 41 () ¶ 2.) Elliott and its subsidiary company, Quad Cities, offer aviation-related services such as inspection, servicing, repair, and maintenance of aircraft and aviation components. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Sky Jet entered into a contract with Elliott for maintenance of its Beech King Air 200 ("the Subject Aircraft"). That contract was in the form of a quotation; Elliott prepared it on May 31, 2013, and Sky Jet accepted the terms by signing on June 4, 2013 ("the Contract"). (Id. ¶ 13.) Under the Contract, Sky Jet agreed to pay $15,000 inexchange for maintenance "overhaul" of its left and right landing gears, including removal and disassembly of the landing gear components, their actuators, and the gear box. (Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A, p.3.) The Contract either incorporates or expressly includes the following six (6) salient provisions:
.)
Quad Cities, not Elliott, performed the maintenance and certified on June 19, 2013 that the Subject Aircraft was in airworthy condition and that all work was performed in conformance with applicable manufacturing maintenance manuals. Only Quad Cities provided any work, testing, or services on the Subject Aircraft. (Id. ¶ 3.)
On September 22, 2014, the Subject Aircraft's left landing gear malfunctioned in flight, forcing the pilots to land it with only partial landing gear assistance. In addition to that affecting the landing gears, the Subject Aircraft sustained other damage upon landing. (Id.)
Sky Jet filed suit against Defendants on September 15, 2015, claiming that Elliott and Quad Cities "breached the duty owed to Sky Jet to use reasonable care in the inspection, servicing, repairing, and maintenance of the Subject Aircraft and its component parts and assemblies." (ECF No. 1, "Compl.," ¶¶ 17, 21.) Specifically, Sky Jet alleged that Defendants negligently and carelessly inspected, serviced, repaired, and maintained the Subject Aircraft's landing gear systems, assemblies, actuators, gearbox, and motor; negligently and carelessly certified the Subject Aircraft as airworthy; and negligently violated FAA regulations, the instructions provided with the aircraft manufacturer's maintenance manual, and other industry standardsand customs. (See, id.) Sky Jet's breach of contract claim against Elliott includes similar allegations plus an additional assertion that Elliott failed to "comply with other express warranties." (Id. ¶ 27.)
In terms of damages, Sky Jet seeks recovery for "property damage to the Subject Aircraft, to a cargo pod affixed to the Subject Aircraft, and to other property in or near the Subject Aircraft; diminished value of the Subject Aircraft; loss of revenues and profits; loss of good will; damage to business reputation; loss of the use of the Subject Aircraft and other aircraft; investigation, maintenance, and recovery costs; and other damages as allowed by law." Sky Jet does not distinguish among its counts with respect to the types of damages sought.
Summary judgment must be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In evaluating summary judgment motions, courts must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light mostfavorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). The Court does not make credibility determinations as to whose story is more believable. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2011). It must consider only evidence that can be "presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Carmichael v. Vill. of Palatine, 605 F.3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2010); see, also, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If this burden is met, then the adverse party must "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
In their memorandum of law, Defendants argued that (i) Elliott is entitled to summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial