William J. Katt

William Katt (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) and Nicole Melvani (Partner-McLean, VA) obtained dismissal of an aviation matter filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, on forum non conveniens grounds. The case arose out of an airplane crash in Connecticut, which resulted in multiple claims of death, personal injury, and property damage. Seven individual lawsuits were filed in Connecticut against multiple parties. The aircraft manufacturer settled one of the Connecticut lawsuits and then filed a complaint seeking contribution, indemnification, and equitable subrogation against our client in Florida, where the aircraft owner had its principal place of business, actively seeking to avoid litigating the matter in Connecticut and contesting the existence of personal jurisdiction in the remaining actions. Bill and Nicole filed a Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that Connecticut was the more appropriate forum. The plaintiff manufacturer opposed the motion, arguing that it had appropriately filed suit in the aircraft owner’s hometown and arguing that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to great deference. The plaintiff manufacturer also argued the Connecticut state court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff given it was contesting personal jurisdiction in the remaining actions pending there, and argued it would be prejudiced if it was forced to re-file in Connecticut because it could be found to have waived its personal jurisdiction defenses in the other matters. After considering all of the requisite factors, the Court agreed with Bill and Nicole and granted the Motion to Dismiss, entering an Order that substantively mirrored the draft Order they prepared and submitted to the Court. The Court dismissed the matter without prejudice to plaintiff to re-file in Connecticut within a limited period of time.

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. 

William Katt (Senior Counsel-Milwaukee, WI) and Nicole Melvani (Of Counsel-McLean, VA) with the able assistance of paralegal Rachel Swords, obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Wilson Elser’s client in an aviation matter that was tried before a federal jury in the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida. The case involved a charter aircraft that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean about five miles from its intended destination in the Bahamas. The passenger and pilot survived and were rescued from the water. The passenger contended he suffered severe and permanent injuries, and filed suit against the pilot, the pilot’s employer and Wilson Elser’s client, a fixed-base operator (FBO) that fueled the aircraft. The plaintiff contended our client negligently fueled the “wrong” tanks in the aircraft, which caused or contributed to the accident. The jury found zero causal negligence on behalf of the FBO and returned a defense verdict in our client’s favor. The jury found the pilot and his employer to be responsible for 80 percent of the plaintiff’s injuries and awarded the plaintiff approximately $2.9 million in damages against the pilot and the charter company. The jury also found the plaintiff to be 20 percent responsible for his own injuries. The jury found the FBO to have zero liability for the accident and the plaintiff’s injuries. The jury rendered a unanimous verdict in the FBO’s favor within a few hours of closing arguments.