Private aircraft often fly for decades, with some general aviation planes remaining in service for 50 or 60 years after manufacture. When these aging aircraft crash due to component failures, victims may find that the law provides no remedy against manufacturers—even when defective products clearly caused the accident. Statutes of repose create absolute time limits on product liability claims, and for old aircraft parts, those limits may have expired long before the crash occurred.

Understanding statutes of repose is essential for anyone evaluating claims involving older aircraft. These laws represent a policy choice that manufacturers should not face indefinite liability for products they sold decades ago. But for crash victims, they can mean that clearly defective products provide no basis for recovery against the companies that made them.

Statutes of Repose vs. Statutes of Limitations

Statutes of repose differ fundamentally from statutes of limitations, though both set time limits on claims. Statutes of limitations run from when an injury occurs or is discovered—they begin when harm happens. Statutes of repose run from when a product was manufactured or sold—they begin regardless of whether harm has occurred and may expire before any injury happens.

This distinction matters enormously in aviation. A private pilot injured when a 40-year-old wing spar fails might have claims well within typical two-year statutes of limitations—the crash just happened. But if the state's statute of repose for product liability is 15 years, the claim against the wing spar manufacturer is barred because more than 15 years have passed since manufacture. The claim expired decades before the pilot was even born.

The policy rationale for statutes of repose involves fairness to manufacturers and practical litigation concerns. After many decades, evidence of design and manufacturing choices becomes difficult to locate. Witnesses die or forget. Companies change ownership, records are lost, and reconstructing what happened during original production becomes impossible. Repose statutes draw a line after which manufacturers are no longer accountable.

Federal Aviation Liability Protection

Congress provided specific protection for general aviation manufacturers through the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, known as GARA. This federal statute creates an 18-year statute of repose for claims against general aviation aircraft and component manufacturers. With narrow exceptions, claims arising from aircraft or parts more than 18 years old are barred against the manufacturers.

GARA was enacted in response to industry concerns that product liability exposure was driving manufacturers out of business. By the early 1990s, American general aviation production had collapsed from over 17,000 aircraft annually to barely 900. Manufacturers blamed unlimited liability for decades-old aircraft. GARA provided protection that was credited with reviving the industry, though critics argue it unfairly shields manufacturers from accountability for defective products.

The 18-year period runs from the date of delivery of the aircraft or component to its first purchaser. For most purposes, this means claims are barred once an aircraft is more than 18 years old—which includes the majority of the general aviation fleet currently flying. The practical effect is that most private plane crashes cannot give rise to manufacturer liability under GARA.

GARA Exceptions

GARA includes exceptions that preserve claims in certain circumstances. Understanding these exceptions is essential because they may allow claims that would otherwise be barred.

The rolling provision exception applies when manufacturers replace components within the 18-year period. If a manufacturer supplied a replacement part that was installed less than 18 years before the accident, claims related to that part remain viable. This exception recognizes that manufacturers who continue supplying parts bear ongoing responsibility for their quality.

Claims are preserved when manufacturers knowingly misrepresent safety information to the FAA or conceal defects. If a manufacturer obtained certification through fraud or hid known defects from regulators, GARA's protection doesn't apply. This exception requires proving not just that a defect existed but that the manufacturer knew about it and actively concealed it—a high evidentiary burden but one that can be met with appropriate evidence.

The written warranty exception preserves claims when manufacturers provided express warranties extending beyond 18 years. Few manufacturers provide such lengthy warranties, but when they do, they cannot avoid the obligations they voluntarily assumed by invoking GARA.

State Statute Variations

While GARA provides a federal floor, state statutes of repose may also apply and vary significantly across jurisdictions. Some states have no product liability statutes of repose, meaning GARA's 18 years would be the only time limit. Other states have repose periods shorter than 18 years, creating even earlier cutoffs for claims.

When state statutes differ from GARA, determining which applies requires careful analysis. GARA preempts state laws that would extend liability beyond 18 years, so more permissive state laws don't help plaintiffs. But GARA doesn't preempt shorter state repose periods, meaning some states impose even stricter time limits than federal law.

Forum selection can affect which repose periods apply. Different states' choice of law rules determine which state's statutes govern particular accidents. Strategic evaluation of where to file claims may allow plaintiffs to take advantage of more favorable repose rules or avoid particularly restrictive state limitations.

Alternative Defendants

When manufacturer claims are barred by repose statutes, other potentially liable parties may still be reachable. Maintenance providers who serviced the aircraft aren't protected by GARA—claims for negligent maintenance that contributed to component failure can proceed regardless of component age. Similarly, remanufacturers or rebuilders who overhaul components may bear liability as de facto manufacturers of the rebuilt products.

Parts suppliers and distributors may face claims separate from manufacturer liability. If a distributor sold counterfeit parts, knew about defects, or made misrepresentations about part quality, claims against them might not be subject to manufacturer-focused repose statutes. The supply chain beyond original manufacturers provides alternative targets when repose bars direct manufacturer claims.

Aircraft operators face negligence claims for flying aircraft with known or knowable defects. Owners who failed to comply with airworthiness directives, who deferred required maintenance, or who operated aircraft beyond safe service life may bear responsibility when aged aircraft crash. These claims don't depend on manufacturer defects and aren't affected by manufacturer repose protections.

Investigating Repose Issues

Evaluating whether repose bars a claim requires determining exactly when relevant parts were manufactured or delivered. This investigation examines aircraft logbooks, component data plates, maintenance records, and manufacturer records to establish production and delivery dates. For rebuilt or overhauled components, determining when the rebuild occurred is essential for rolling provision analysis.

Exception analysis requires investigating manufacturer knowledge at the time of certification. Did internal documents show awareness of defects? Did the manufacturer make representations to the FAA that proved false? Were defects concealed that, if disclosed, would have affected certification? These questions require discovery from manufacturers, making exception claims difficult to evaluate without litigation.

The complexity of repose analysis underscores the importance of consulting experienced aviation attorneys before concluding that claims are barred. What appears to be a straightforward repose bar may have exceptions that preserve claims. What appears to be a viable claim may face repose obstacles not immediately apparent. Proper evaluation requires understanding both the legal framework and the specific facts of each potential claim.

Policy Debates Continue

Statutes of repose in aviation remain controversial. Critics argue that manufacturers of clearly defective products escape accountability while victims are left without recourse. Proponents contend that indefinite liability is unworkable for products with decades-long service lives. These policy debates continue in legislatures and courts, with outcomes affecting the rights of future crash victims.

For current victims, the law is what it is. Understanding repose statutes—and their exceptions—allows realistic evaluation of claims and strategic pursuit of available remedies. When manufacturer claims are barred, alternative defendants and theories may provide recovery paths. Thorough legal analysis identifies the best available options within current legal constraints.