Aviation claims professionals are navigating an increasingly complex environment shaped by evolving regulations, advancing technology, and heightened expectations for early investigation and coordinated response. Mica Nguyen Worthy and Aliyah Adams recently attended the SMU Air Law Symposium in Irving, TX. They engaged in discussions across the aviation law community on several recurring issues that are actively shaping how aviation claims are evaluated, defended, and resolved.
Evidence and Data Preservation Remains Critical
Aviation claims are uniquely evidence and expert-driven. Physical wreckage, aircraft components, maintenance records, operational documents, and digital data, such as avionics downloads and flight‑tracking information, will frequently determine outcomes. With the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigations often controlling access to evidence, claims professionals are prioritizing early and coordinated preservation efforts to avoid evidentiary gaps, spoliation issues, and/or strategic disadvantages later in litigation.
Courts have increasingly emphasized the importance of preserving flight‑related digital evidence in aviation disputes, particularly where the loss of such data affects case‑critical issues of causation or pilot response. In Sky Jet M.G. Inc. v. VSE Aviation Services, LLC, a federal court imposed spoliation sanctions after an aircraft owner failed to preserve cockpit voice recorder (CVR) data following a hot‑start engine incident, finding that the loss prejudiced the defense and supported an inference of intent to deprive under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). 2025 WL 1664002, at *16–28 (D. Kan. June 12, 2025). The court ordered an adverse‑inference jury instruction, precluded pilot testimony, and awarded attorneys’ fees, underscoring that CVR and flight data recorder (FDR) information was not merely ancillary but was central to the aviation litigation in that case. The circumstances of each case may differ (including whether the parties have the requisite custody or control of the evidence), but in any event, the parties need to assess early what evidence must be preserved promptly once litigation is reasonably foreseeable.
Parallel Regulatory Investigations Complicate Civil Claims
In addition to the agencies controlling access to evidence early, the FAA is often also involved in parallel investigations into enforcement actions or other regulatory proceedings that commonly run alongside civil claims, influencing discovery timing, pleadings, and settlement dynamics. Federal aviation investigations are conducted within a regulatory and safety‑focused framework, with the use of investigative materials in civil litigation subject to significant statutory limits. 49 U.S.C. § 1154. Courts have likewise recognized that federal aviation oversight is designed to promote safety through regulation, not to adjudicate civil liability or assign fault among private parties. United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 814–21 (1984). Even though the intent is not to provide evidence for civil litigants, statements and findings made in regulatory contexts may later surface in civil litigation, increasing the need for careful coordination between counsel, insurers, and insureds from the outset of a claim.
Product Liability and Long‑Tail Risks Are Being Revisited
Recent case law has renewed focus on aviation product liability exposure for manufacturers, component suppliers, and maintenance providers, particularly in claims involving long‑tail risk. While federal statutes such as the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) remain a powerful defense, courts continue to refine how and when those protections apply.
In Byrd v. Avco Corp. (N.C. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2026), the North Carolina Supreme Court reaffirmed that GARA’s eighteen‑year statute of repose provides manufacturers with a substantive immunity from suit, not merely a procedural defense. The Court held that an interlocutory order denying a manufacturer’s GARA defense affects a substantial right and is therefore immediately appealable, recognizing that the protection afforded by GARA is lost if a manufacturer is forced to proceed to trial before appellate review. See, NC Supreme Court Reverses Precedent by Holding that Denial of a Statute of Repose Defense is Immediately Appealable
In another North Carolina case, the courts emphasized freedom of contract in limiting the statute of limitations on certain claims. In Warren v. Cielo Ventures, Inc. (N.C. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2026), the North Carolina Supreme Court enforced a one‑year contractual limitations period, even in the face of a statutory Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim that would otherwise carry a longer limitations period. The Court emphasized that clear, conspicuous contractual provisions allocating risk and timing will be enforced as written.
For aviation service providers, including maintenance facilities, FBOs, charter operators, and flight schools, Warren serves as a reminder that well‑drafted, clearly presented service agreements and preservation protocols can materially affect exposure long before a claim reaches trial. Early attention to both evidence and contract‑based risk allocation remains critical. See, On Final Approach: How the NC Supreme Court Case Can Ground Long-Tail Aviation Liability.
For aviation claims professionals, the North Carolina cases, Byrd and Warren, underscore the importance of early, detailed factual development regarding aircraft and component history, maintenance activity, and alleged regulatory disclosures. Plaintiffs continue to explore ways to invoke GARA’s misrepresentation exception, which makes early technical investigation, document preservation, and strategic motion practice critical to managing exposure and reserving decisions in aviation product liability cases.
Conclusion
Today’s aviation claims environment demands early investigation, disciplined evidence preservation, and coordinated regulatory and litigation strategy. As aviation operations, technology, and liability risks continue to evolve, claims professionals who remain attuned to these developments and who coordinate early with litigation defense counsel are better positioned to manage exposure and to drive more efficient and more defensible outcomes and resolutions.
