.

Aviation & Complex Litigation

During the last three decades, the members of this practice group have, on a regular basis, represented virtually all aspects of the aviation industry including: aircraft manufacturers, suppliers of steel and forgings used in aircraft components, suppliers of aviation ground support equipment, operators, pilots and airport facilities. As set forth below, the matters have involved questions of liability for the major recall of aircraft components, where more than $100 million was at stake, to operators of business jets, to persons injured in hot air balloon rides.

We have also represented commercial operators and pilots in licensing and administration proceedings before the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.
 
The members of the group are intimately familiar with various aspects of aviation activities and operations. The chair of the group has been a licensed and active instrument-rated pilot for over 30 years. Another member of the group holds his airline transport pilot certificate, along with a gold medallion flight instructor certificate, and was formerly a captain for a regional airline and first officer for Trans World Airlines on the MD-80 aircraft. Two other members have also trained as pilots, with one successfully building and operating his own home-built airplane. Members of the group are active in numerous trade and profession-related associations, including the Aviation Insurance Association and the Lawyer-Pilot's Bar Association.
 
Because of the broad range of activities that occur within the aviation industry, and the often catastrophic results when an aviation activity goes awry, each aviation liability claim often has very unique circumstances and issues. Due to the likelihood of serious damage to or destruction of the product involved, the members of our aviation litigation group are often engaged by the parties or their insurers shortly after an event occurs to assist in structuring the investigation and assembling the team of experts to conduct such testing, accident reconstruction, and failure analysis as may be necessary to determine the cause of the event.
 
The experience gained in years of handling complex aviation and product liability cases has easily translated to the litigation of other commercial disputes where technology and product operation is at issue. The use of techniques such as finite element analysis, scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam analysis and computerized recreation and depiction of critical events are techniques that easily transfer to and provide a significant advantage in the handling of litigation of numerous disputes that arise, not just in aviation matters but in various commercial settings. It is a combination that brings together the access to and understanding of these technologies and expertise, with the experience of trying to verdict protracted complex legal matters, that enables us to provide effective advocacy to clients who come to us for legal representation.

Representative Cases and Clients

  • We represented a major regional specialty steel company that melted and forged ingots from which aircraft engine components were later made. An engine manufacturer to whom the steel was sold underwent an $80 million recall due to a series of faulty crankshafts and claimed that the crankshafts were defective because of inherent defects in the supplied steel. After a four-week trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the jury concluded that the evidence proffered by our experts, including extensive testing and sophisticated analysis, established that the steel was not defective in its inherent structure.
  • A major manufacturer of seats used in corporate and commercial jets was sued after the crash of a corporate jet resulted in a brain injury disabling a senior executive. It was alleged that this was due to seat failure from the impact sequence. Through reconstruction of seat components and analysis by biomechanical engineers, which established that the seat could not have failed as alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's expert was discredited in a pre-trial hearing and the case settled favorably for the seat manufacturer.
  • A propeller manufacturer was sued when a propeller failed in flight in a single-engine aircraft requiring an attempted emergency landing in which the pilot and his wife died, and their eight-year-old daughter, who was substantially injured, watched her parents expire post-accident. The propeller manufacturer admitted that it had a defective decal that would lead to corrosion of propeller at the point where failure occurred, but through maintenance experts and metallurgists, we were able to show that the manufacturer had provided specific instructions for removal of the defective decal, which were not followed.
  • We represented a leading forger of commercial transportation parts that had forged crankshafts used in aircraft engines. After several fatal crashes, and other reported crankshaft failures, the aircraft manufacturer initiated a $100 million-plus recall and claimed that the crankshaft defects were the result of forging problems. After a two-month trial in Texas, the jury returned a verdict finding that the forging company did not create any defects in the crankshaft and that the crankshaft defects resulted from design problems.
  • A leading manufacturer of specialty polyurethane materials was sued regarding alleged defective equipment provided by the designer and manufacturer of high speed polyurethane mixing equipment used in association with robotic manufacturing process. After a two-month trial, a federal jury in Philadelphia awarded the polyurethane manufacturer in excess of $12 million against the supplier of the defective mixing equipment.
  • On behalf of a leading manufacturer of airblast equipment, we are acting as personal counsel in advising the manufacturer regarding more than 10,000 lawsuits around the country, interfacing with insurance counsel assigned to represent the client as an insured, and participation in the structuring of the national defense strategy for handling the claims while at the same time administering the coverage issues relating to claims among the various insurers.

The Aviation and Complex Litigation Practice Group of Marshall Dennehey serves clients in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Ft. Lauderdale and communities throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Florida, New York and Connecticut.

Results

View all

Reversal Obtained in Pennsylvania Superior Court Regarding Denial of Objections to Venue

We obtained a reversal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court of the trial court’s denial of preliminary objections to venue. We successfully moved in the trial court for certification of the ruling pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(b) so that an immediate appeal from the interlocutory ruling could be taken, and we subsequently prevailed on appeal. The litigation arose from a helicopter accident that occurred in Afghanistan. Both plaintiffs, husband and wife, resided in Arizona. Our client is a Delaware corporation located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, that refurbished the helicopter. The codefendant corporation leased the helicopter to the plaintiff-husband’s employer, which was organized and principally operates in Montana. The plaintiffs’ primary focus in seeking to establish venue was on our client and, in particular, on the fact that it purchased two fabric interiors from a Philadelphia vendor. The Superior Court determined that the business dealings of our client did not constitute actual business conducted in Philadelphia County. It stressed that “doing business with a Philadelphia County company does not amount to doing business in Philadelphia County if the obtained goods, services, or personnel are utilized elsewhere to further the defendant’s business activities.” As to the codefendant, the Superior Court concluded the limited venue evidence pointed to a separate but related corporate entity, and that the evidence failed to show the co-defendant regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County. Because there was no evidence to support the imputation of a separate entity’s contacts with Philadelphia on the co-defendant, venue as to the co-defendant was also improper.

Firm Highlights

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.