Court to issue written ruling after discretionary-review hearing in Hilti v. Javelin Aircraft case

The court heard oral argument in case number 890778, Hilti v. Javelin Aircraft of Canada. Melissa Daniels, counsel for the petitioners Northwest Seaplanes and West Isle Air, asked the court to grant discretionary review of an omnibus trial-court summary-judgment order. The judge confirmed that the consolidated dispute concerns cross-motions for summary judgment and that other plaintiffs have settled, leaving negligence and contribution claims between the remaining parties.

Daniels told the court the trial court misinterpreted federal aviation regulations and misapplied maritime- and product-liability principles to undisputed facts. "Northwest Seaplanes and West Isle Air respectfully request that this court grant discretionary review of the trial court's omnibus order on the party's summary judgments," she said, and argued the lower court improperly discounted expert evidence concluding the alteration was minor under 14 CFR 1.1. Daniels said experts (identified in the record as Jim Lambert and Dr. Myers) opined there was "no appreciable effect" and that the respondent produced no expert contradicting that view.

Respondent counsel Mr. Harris urged the court to deny the petition as premature. He said the trial court, Judge Wedby, applied the regulations and controlling authority and that petitioners had not shown the "significant deviation" from generally recognized practice that discretionary review requires. Harris pointed to procedures for FAA field approvals and to case law cited in the record (including a Sixth Circuit decision discussed in briefing). He also noted that a key expert relied on in the petition had been withdrawn on the eve of deposition and that factual disputes—especially the parties' "3.328" theory and causation—remain for a jury.

Harris further told the court the record includes preliminary NTSB factual findings that the insertion of the moisture seal "indeed caused rotational friction on the actuator," which he said will be admissible at trial. He emphasized that the parties had recently stipulated to move the jury trial date (he estimated about six months out) and that many disputed matters could and should be resolved in the trial court before appellate intervention.

Daniels returned on rebuttal to stress that, under the trial court's rulings and admiralty law, the petitioners may be limited to negligence remedies tied to items added to the aircraft (rather than full warranty remedies), and thus may be precluded from pursuing warranty-based economic and punitive damages, including recovery of the aircraft's full value. She pointed the court to Form 337 and appendix A materials cited in the record when explaining how the major/minor alteration analyses were applied below.

The judge thanked counsel for their briefs and argument, said the court would issue a written ruling, and concluded the hearing.

What remains: counsel and the court framed the live dispute as a jury-phase fight over causation and apportionment, with the petitioners contending the trial court made improper factual determinations on summary judgment and respondents arguing that legal and procedural standards were correctly applied and that significant factual matters remain for trial. The court did not rule from the bench.