CONSUMER FRAUD. DEFENDANT'S JUDGMENT

• Pages: 9-9

Verdicts By Category

CONSUMER FRAUD

DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT

Consumer fraud – Breach of contract – Plaintiff

contends defendant seller misrepresented

condition of aircraft plaintiff purchased from him

and defendant inspector conducted negligent

inspection that misrepresented airworthiness of

airplane – Defendants assert plaintiff is certified

airplane mechanic and there were no

misrepresentations made.

Burlington County, NJ

In this consumer fraud case, the plaintiff asserted

that the defendant seller and inspector of an

aircraft violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud

Act by failing to comply with Airworthiness

Directives on the plane purchased by the plaintiff.

The defendant seller argued that the plaintiff is an

FAA Certified aircraft airframe and power plant

mechanic.

The plaintiff saw a 1971 Piper Cherokee aircraft ad-

vertised for sale in an airplane publication. The plain-

tiff contacted the defendant owner of the aircraft

and entered into a purchase and sale agreement

with the defendant owner for $20,000. In the agree-

ment, the defendant warranted that the aircraft had

a current airworthiness certificate issued by the FAA;

that all the aircraft log books were accurate and cur-

rent; and that all applicable airworthiness directives

had been complied with. The plaintiff argued that

there were defects in the aircraft including failure to

inspect the crankshaft properly and the stabilator

balance weight tube for cracks.

The plaintiff had a pre-buy inspection performed by

the defendant inspector failed to note the defects.

Based on the representations of the seller and the in-

spector, the aircraft was believed to be in compli-

ance with required maintenance and was airworthy,

when in fact, it was not. The plaintiff claimed that, as

a direct and proximate result of the negligence of

the defendants, the plaintiff was deprived of the ben-

efit of his bargain and incurred costs and damages

including loss of use, inability to acquire additional

flight time, carrying costs, insurance costs and other

damages including attorney’s fees and expert costs.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff knew the condi-

tion of the aircraft he purchased and that the plaintiff

was given an ability to inspect all relevant log books

and the airplane itself, which he took full advantage

of and had a pre-purchase inspection done. The

plaintiff knew the airplane was over 45 years old, that

the engine had been used more than 90% of its an-

ticipated life, and would soon need to be over-

hauled. The defendant argued that both the plaintiff

and the mechanic hired to inspect the plane had

access to the Airworthy Directives and could have ex-

amined them. The defendant seller argued that the

plaintiff had buyer’s remorse and filed suit knowing full

well the condition of the airplane he was purchasing

at the time.

The defendant inspector argued that, as a licensed

A&P mechanic himself, the plaintiff was aware that:

no AD check is required to be performed during a

pre-sale inspection; no AD review is required to be

conducted in a pre-inspection; and that the only

check of ADs that is conducted were those checks

that occurred during the 1971 Piper’s annual inspec-

tions as noted in the aircraft’s logbooks. The defen-

dant also asserted that there are no FAA regulations,

guidelines, or requirements for an AD check to be

conducted during a pre-sale inspection. The defen-

dant also put forth that there was no indication in his

logbook entry for the subject inspection that the air-

craft was airworthy or in compliance with ADs.

The parties submitted to non-binding arbitration prior

to trial. The arbitrator found that the plaintiff failed to

establish that either defendant had breached a duty

owing to the plaintiff. The arbitrator believed that

there was not enough substantive proof that demon-

strated the defendants were liable to the plaintiff. The

arbitrator found in favor of the defendants. The de-

fendants made a motion to confirm the arbitration

order and the motion was granted.

REFERENCE

Leon vs. Robb, et al. Docket no. L-001136-18; Judge

John E. Harrington, 01-13-20.

Attorney for plaintiff: Mark J. Molz, Esq. in

Hainesport, NJ. Attorneys for defendant seller:

Sander D. Friedman and Wesley Hanna of Law

Office of Sander D. Friedman in West Berlin, NJ.

Attorney for defendant inspector/inspection

company: Sarah Slachetka of Folkman Law Offices,

P.C. in Cherry Hill, NJ.

9

New Jersey Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now