This document summarizes recent developments in aviation law across various topics:
- Insurance case law addressed the validity of appraisal clauses, compliance with pilot warranties, and bad faith claims.
- Most federal circuit courts have adopted federal preemption of aviation safety, but approaches differ across circuits.
- Federal jurisdiction issues concerned when federal question, diversity, or admiralty jurisdiction apply to aviation cases.
- Personal jurisdiction cases addressed various aviation entities like manufacturers, operators, and overhaul facilities.
- Other topics included the General Aviation Revitalization Act and its interpretations, expert testimony admissibility, punitive damages availability, and interpretations of the Montreal Convention.
7. Appraisal clause in insurance policy found to be valid mechanism for resolving dispute regarding cost to repair physical damage to aircraft.
8. Insurer allowed to fulfill policy obligations by making repairs, even if aircraft would not be as valuable after repairs since policy excluded loss for diminution in use, appearance and/or value.
13. 2011 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 7 (Phila Ct. Com. Pl. January 5, 2011)
14.
15.
16. In re Air Crash near Clarence Center, New York, on February 12, 2009, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78464 (W.D. N.Y. 2011) (listing decisions)
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24. Personal jurisdiction over French helicopter component manufacturer in Illinois in case involving Illinois accident on grounds part was designed for use in helicopter to be distributed in Illinois. Court relies on U.S. Supreme Court decision in Asahi. Russell v. SNFA, 408 Ill. App. 3d 827, 946 N.E. 2d 1076, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 290 (2011).
25. No personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire over component manufacturer (fuel shut off valve) for New Hampshire accident where only contact was accident in New Hampshire. West v. Bell Helicopter, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. N.H. 2011).
51. NASCAR’s motion in limine to exclude portions of testimony of Tommy McFall re: Metallurgical engineering, Fire cause and origin, Toxicology, Aircraft maintenance, Weather radar system
58. The Ninth Circuit clarified that a plaintiff does not have to prove that an airline violated an FAA standard to establish that there was an "accident" under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention
63. Corporate owner of two airplanes did not act as an "air transport undertaking" as defined in the Montreal Convention (Article 1(1)) when it provided gratuitous carriage to passengers
66. Although jurisdiction proper pursuant to “fifth jurisdiction” under Montreal Convention, the MC did not override court’s power to dismiss for forum non conveniens