William Katt (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) with the help of Nicole Melvani (Partner-McLean, VA) secured a significant defense victory on behalf of a aircraft component manufacturer following a multi-week jury trial in an aviation matter in Rhode Island Superior Court. Wilson Elser was called to assume lead and trial counsel role after the case had been pending for several years. The plaintiff alleged our client’s bushings, a small part used in aircraft engines, failed to conform to design specifications and that the client falsified material certifications. The plaintiff further alleged the bushings migrated inside aircraft engines during operation, causing engine failure. The FAA issued a safety bulletin, mandating a recall for inspection and replacement of bushings. The plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract and several related claims. The plaintiff sought approximately $7.5 million in damages plus punitive damages and pre-judgment interest at 12 percent, including approximately $2.5 million in compensatory damages associated with the recall and another $5 million in consequential damages associated with settlement payments to third parties, which included a $4.5 million settlement payment to passengers who were severely injured when their sightseeing helicopter crashed in California due to engine failure. Prior to trial, Wilson Elser secured summary judgment in the client’s favor on the indemnification count. The remaining counts were tried to a jury. Although the plaintiffs asked for $7.5 million from the jury, their settlement demands during trial were significantly more because they claimed 12 percent pre-judgment interest running from at least 2017. The jury found in favor of Wilson Elser’s client on all counts except for breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose. The jury awarded the plaintiff less than $1.5 million in damages, thereby accepting the defense’s theory that the California accident did not involve a bushing manufactured by Wilson Elser’s client and that the claimed recall damages included unsupported expenses. Because the jury found there was no intentional misrepresentation by the firm’s client, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s punitive damage claim as a matter of law. The verdict was significantly less than the demands made by the plaintiff during trial. Additionally, throughout the litigation and trial, the plaintiff’s primary focus was on the breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation claims, both of which were rejected by the jury.