Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Ovesen v. Mitsubishi XYZ Corporations, 2012 WL 677953
On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Oveson v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of American, Inc., 2012 WL 677953 (February 29, 2012). Free copy available here.
How Appellant-Wrongful Death Plaintiff Describes the Case:
Appellant-Wrongful Death Plaintiff describes question in terms of two successive rulings issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In the first the court ruled that manufacturer’s failure to disclose the British CAA report regarding the model of manufacturer’s aircraft in which wrongful death decent was killed constituted evidence that manufacturer had “knowingly misrepresented, concealed, or withheld required information that was material and relevant and that was causally related” to decedent’s death.
Put another way, the U.S. District Court ruled that the “fraud” exception issue under GARA should go to the jury.
In the second the court ruled that the fact of the British CAA report did not constitute “required information” under 14 C.F.R. § 21.3(d)(2) for reporting to the FAA within the meaning of the GARA “fraud” exception “because the particular Aircraft in question was manufactured under an import type certificate number A2PC issued under § 21.29”. Continue reading