Fall Air, Inc. v. Paul Sissons ( 2018 )

ACCEPTED
03-17-00571-CV
21588604
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/3/2018 4:23 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-17-00571-CV
In the
FILED IN
Third Court of Appeals 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
at Austin
1/3/2018 4:23:50 PM
____________________________ JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
FALL AIR, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
PAUL SISSONS,
Appellee,
_____________________________
On Appeal from the 425th District Court
of Williamson County, Texas
______________________________
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
______________________________
Frederick C. Morello, Esq. Robert J. Wood, Jr.
FREDERICK C. MORELLO, PA State Bar No. 00788712
Florida State Bar No. 0714933 robert@mylawteam.com
111 N. Frederick Ave., 2nd Flr. T. Blake Edwards
Daytona Beach, FL 32113 State Bar No. 24050553
Phone: 386-252-0754 blake@mylawteam.com
Fax: 386-252-0921 LINDQUIST WOOD EDWARDS, LLP
Email: live2freefly@gmail.com 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2280
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-382-9789
Fax: 214-953-0410
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………. ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………... iv
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………….... 1
ARGUMENT……………………...……………………………………………..... 2
I. SISSONS’ APPELLEE’S BRIEF DOES NOT ADDRESS
THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED IN APPELLANT’S
BRIEF AND DOES NOT SATISFY TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2)....... 2
II. DESPITE SISSONS’ CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY, THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S DTPA AND BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS BECAUSE SISSONS DID
NOT ADDRESS THOSE CLAIMS IN HIS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT………………………………………...… 5
III. DESPITE HIS BURDEN TO DO SO, SISSONS STILL
FAILED TO (1) ESTABLISH THE DATE PLAINTIFF’S
CLAIMS ACCRUED, AND (2) NEGATE THE DISCOVERY
RULE………………………………………………………………... 9
IV. SISSONS’ ARGUMENT TO REBUT FRAUDULENT
CONCEALMENT RELIES SOLELY UPON THE INJURY
BEING ONE FRACTURED CT BLADE IN THE RIGHT
ENGINE. SISSONS FAILED TO ADDRESS OR REBUT
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF
THE FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT DOCTRINE. THE
“INJURY” SISSONS IS BEING SUED FOR IS THE
INSTALLATION OF PARTS THAT WERE PROHIBITED
IN BOTH ENGINES AND WHICH HE FALSELY ATTESTED
TO MEETING THE MANUFACTURER AND FAA
STANDARDS…………………………………………………….... 13
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief ii
V. IT IS UNKNOWN WHY SISSONS IS ARGUING AND
CITING CASE LAW ON AN “INFORMAL” OR “SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIP” FIDUCIARY DUTY. PLAINTIFF HAS
REQUESTED THIS COURT TO DECLARE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN IA AND AIRCRAFT OWNER A FIDUCIARY
RELATIONSHIP AS A MATTER OF LAW, LIKE THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP…………………………. 15
PRAYER ……………………………………...………………………………… 16
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………………….. 18
PROOF OF SERVICE…………………………………………………………… 18
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATE CASES
G&H Towing Co. v. Magee,
347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011)………………………....…………………......…..…. 5
Jacobs v. Satterwhite,
65 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2001)……………………………………………………....... 5
Salinas v. Gary Pools, Inc.,
31 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) ………………………..... 6
LaGloria Oil and Gas Co. v. Carboline Co.,
84 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, pet. denied)………………………..…… 6
Cluck v. Mecom,
401 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) …….…...... 6
Dernick Resources, Inc. v. Wilstein,
312 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) ……….……... 6, 7
Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez,
941 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. 1997) …………………………………………..…….…..... 8
STATUTES
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2)……………………………………………….……….… 2
TEX. BUS. & COM CODE § 17.565…………………………………………...……... 6
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief iv
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
If the purpose of an Appellee’s Brief is to regurgitate what was argued below
at Summary Judgment, then Sissons’ Appellee’s Brief is a model brief. However, if
the purpose of an Appellee’s Brief is to address and rebut the facts and issues raised
in the Appellant’s Brief, then Appellee’s Brief completely misses the mark. In this
case, Sissons has ignored the following facts and issues raised in Appellant’s Brief:
• Plaintiff did not discover, until May 2014, that the compressor turbine
blades (“CT blades”) of both engines of the aircraft owned by Plaintiff
(the “Aircraft”) were installed too short;
• Plaintiff’s injuries in this case are having to re-install the CT blades that
were installed too short after Sissons improperly certified they were
installed correctly;
• the Aircraft’s right engine (the “Right Engine”) failure on June 8, 2009
had nothing to do with blade length;
• the Right Engine failure was the result of a single blade cracking as a
result of High Cycle Fatigue (“HCF”);
• the other 57 CT blades in the Right Engine did not fail on June 8, 2009;
• neither the left engine of the Aircraft (the “Left Engine”), nor the 58 CT
blades contained therein, failed on June 8, 2009; and
• there is no evidence or allegation that Sissons did anything wrong with
respect to the Right Engine failing because of a CT blade fracture on
June 8, 2009.
In fact, the following words are missing completely from Sissons’ Brief:
“short” (blades), “left engine,” or “other engine.” The injury Sissons is being sued
for is authorizing the installation of short blades in both engines, which did not cause
either engine to fail.
Approximately 90% or more of Sissons’ Brief is a recitation of case law,
without any application of the facts of those cases to this case. Sissons’ Brief relies
upon the same old argument that Plaintiff’s injury in this case was either the Right
Engine failing or a cracked CT blade. However, Sissons fails to explain how an
engine failure or cracked CT blade translates to an injury that the CT blades in both
engines were installed too short after he attested that they were installed in
accordance with Pratt and Whitney and FAA standards on FAA Form 337. Sissons
completely ignores the facts that (1) the evidence he submitted to the Trial Court
proves that the cracked CT blade had nothing to do with improper blade length and
(2) the Left Engine did not fail.
ARGUMENT
I. SISSONS’ APPELLEE’S BRIEF DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FACTS
AND ISSUES RAISED IN APPELLANT’S BRIEF AND DOES NOT
SATISFY TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2).
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2) states that, “When practicable, the appellee’s brief
should respond to the appellant’s issues or points in the order the appellant presented
those issues or points.” Despite this Rule, Sissons’ Brief fails to address the facts,
issues, and points raised in Appellant’s Brief. Regurgitation of summary judgment
arguments (which is what Sissons did in his Brief) does not satisfy the purpose of an
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 2
Appellee’s Brief. Below are just some of the facts raised in Sissons’ Brief which are
inaccurate and/or misleading and issues and points from Appellant’s Brief which
Sissons chose to ignore in his Brief.
Sissons’ Brief at pages 1-2 states that both engines were inspected in May
2011, but that statement is inaccurate. A reading of C.R. 247-248 does not support
that assertion. Only one set of blades in the Right Engine (the engine that failed)
were inspected as of that date. (see also Court Order that only the blades of the Right
Engine were inspected. (C.R. 278-279)). The Right Engine was never released to
Plaintiff during the Florida Case. (C.R. 250).
Sissons’ Brief at page 1 states that, “Appellant admits the condition of the
blades is not something the Appellee was capable of discovering,” citing C.R. 72-
76. That citation is a cherry picking of Mr. Nardi’s (owner of Fall Air) deposition
where he explained the theory in the Florida Case that a suspected blade swap may
have occurred in trying to discover the cause of the fractured blade. If a blade swap
had occurred, Mr. Nardi admitted in his deposition in Sissons’ case that Sissons
would not have found a blade swap in Century Turbine’s records. However, when
Plaintiff’s expert confirmed there was no blade swap in examining the cause of the
fractured blade, that theory in the Florida Case went down the toilet. Sissons ignores
the fact that during the second inspection in May, 2014, Plaintiff’s expert uncovered
the fact that the CT blades were improperly installed below minimum length (C.R.
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 3
248) (which had nothing to do with the Right Engine’s catastrophic failure, caused
by a cracked CT blade). This was the first discovery by Plaintiff of the “injury”
caused by Sissons, finding improper parts were installed which was corroborated by
the work sheets of Century Turbines that Sissons reviewed prior to examining FAA
Form 337. (C.R. 248-250, 258-267, 280-283, 304, 314-319, 393, 395, 403).
The fact that the CT blades were installed too short in both engines was
admitted by Sissons’ counsel to the Trial Court at the summary judgment hearing.
(R.R. Vol. II, p. 21). Sissons never explains how one cracked CT blade in one engine
translates into short blades being installed in both engines, where there was no CT
blade fracture or failure of any CT blade in the Left Engine. Sissons never explains
how the expert report by Sherry Labs (C.R. 127-129; 135-137) he relied upon at
summary judgment, concluding the CT blade fracture was due to HCF, equates to
short blades being installed in both engines. Simply stated, the fractured blade in
the right engine was one “injury,” the installation of short blades in both engines was
a distinct and separate “injury.”
Absent from the facts is how or when Sissons learned the CT blades were
installed below minimum standards in both engines (R.R. Vol. II, p. 21); likewise
absent is why he did not see this in Century Turbine’s paperwork (which he would
have reviewed before executing the FAA Form 337), which paperwork reflected the
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 4
blades were installed below minimum standards. (C.R. 249, 258-267, 280-283, 304,
314 – 319, 393, 395, 403).
II. DESPITE SISSONS’ CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY, THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
PLAINTIFF’S DTPA AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS
BECAUSE SISSONS DID NOT ADDRESS THOSE CLAIMS IN HIS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Apparently recognizing that granting a summary judgment on a claim not
addressed in the summary judgment motion is, as a general rule, reversible error,1
Sissons urges this Honorable Court to affirm the Trial Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s
claims for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) and
breach of fiduciary duty (the “Newly-Filed Claims”), even though Sissons did not
address those claims in his Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 According to Sissons,
the limitations period for the Newly-Filed Claims is the same as the limitations
period for the original claims on which he moved for summary judgment (the
“Earlier-Filed Claims”). Thus, Sissons asserts that since he proved entitlement to
the limitations defense on the Earlier-Filed Claims (which he did not), the Newly-
Filed Claims were properly dismissed even if not addressed in his Motion for
Summary Judgment. See Appellee’s Brief at pp. 21-22.
1
G&H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293, 297 (Tex. 2011); Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d
653, 655–56 (Tex. 2001).
2
The Newly-Filed claims were included in Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition that was filed after
Sissons filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, and Sissons opted not to amend that Motion.
(Second Supp. 9-10; C.R. 7-14).
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 5
The problem with this argument is that Sissons focused solely on the
limitations period for the respective claims (i.e. 2 and 4 years), without addressing
whether the Earlier-Filed Claims and Newly-Filed Claims “accrued” at the same
time. In attempting to establish when Plaintiff’s Earlier-Filed Claims accrued,
Sissons asserted in his Motion for Summary Judgment and continues to assert in his
Appellee’s Brief that that the discovery rule did not apply to the Earlier-Filed
Claims. See Appellee’s Brief at pp. 4, 11-14. Sissons argues that Plaintiff’s injury
was “not inherently undiscoverable” and, as a result, “there is no basis for application
of the discovery rule to toll the accrual of any limitations period.” (C.R. 12-13); see
also Appellee’s Brief at p. 9.
Sissons ignores, however, that the discovery rule is built into the DTPA and
thus “always applies to DTPA claims.” Salinas v. Gary Pools, Inc., 31 S.W.3d 333,
336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (emphasis added); see also LaGloria
Oil and Gas Co. v. Carboline Co., 84 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, pet.
denied); TEX. BUS. & COM CODE § 17.565. Similarly, “the Texas Supreme Court
has held that a fiduciary’s misconduct is inherently undiscoverable.” Cluck v.
Mecom, 401 S.W.3d 110, 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied)
(emphasis added).3
3
A breach of fiduciary duty of disclosure (Sissons failed to disclose that the repairs were not made
in accordance with Pratt & Whitney standards ) is also tantamount to concealment for limitations
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 6
Based on his belief that the discovery rule has no application in this case,
Sissons made no attempt to establish the date on which Plaintiff discovered or in the
exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the occurrence of Sissons’
wrongful conduct. As a result, Sissons made no attempt to establish when Plaintiff’s
DTPA or breach of fiduciary duty claims accrued. He is thus disingenuous in
arguing to this Honorable Court that his purported entitlement to a limitations
defense on fraud and negligence somehow translates to the same defense on
Plaintiff’s DTPA and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
In attempting to convince this Honorable Court to affirm summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s Newly-Filed Claims, Sissons further argues “harmless error.”
Specifically, Sissons argues that those claims in the Amended Petition are barred by
limitations, that there is no fiduciary duty owed by him to Plaintiff, and that as a
result those claims would be dismissed anyway. See Appellee’s Brief at pp. 22-23.
As an initial matter, Sissons failed to address when Plaintiff’s DTPA and breach of
fiduciary duty claims accrued. Therefore, he has not established his limitations
defense on those claims. Further, Sissons did not move for summary judgment on
purposes and “the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim does not begin to run
until the claimant ‘knew or should have known of facts that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
would have led to the discovery of the wrongful act.’” Dernick Resources, Inc. v. Wilstein, 312
S.W.3d 864, 878 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) citing Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d
414, 420 (Tex. 1997).
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 7
the basis of him not being a fiduciary of Plaintiff, 4 and thus, likewise has not
established his entitlement to summary judgment on that issue.
Sissons’ final argument on this issue is that Plaintiff waived its argument that
summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims was improper when Sissons only
moved for summary judgment on the Earlier-Filed Claims. See Appellee’s Brief at
p. 22. There are several problems with this argument. First, Sissons cites no legal
authority in support of it. Although he cites as authority TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1, that
rule deals with “Filing the Record” and does not support his argument. Second,
Sissons fails to explain how Plaintiff would even raise this issue in the Trial Court.
In Plaintiff’s Response to Sissons’ Motion for Summary Judgment, all of Plaintiff’s
pending causes of action (including those added in the Amended Petition) were listed
for the Trial Court to see, along with case law governing the standard for summary
judgment and the movant’s burden on those causes. (C.R. 226, 228, 229). Plaintiff
also addressed in its summary judgment response and at the summary judgment
hearing how Plaintiff’s DTPA claim was distinct from the other claims pled, in that
it did not require a showing of “inherent undiscoverability” and/or “objective
4
Science Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex. 1997) (“A motion for summary
judgment must itself expressly present the grounds upon which it is made, and must stand or fall
on these grounds alone.”).
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 8
verifiability” and that “constructive notice” does not apply to a DTPA claim. (C.R.
237-239); (R.R. Vol. VII, pp.18-21).
Yet, despite Sissons moving for summary judgment on some, but not all, of
Plaintiff’s claims, the Trial Court granted summary judgment on all claims a few
days after the hearing. How and why would Plaintiff be on notice that the Trial
Court would grant summary judgment on all claims if they were absent from
Sissons’ motion and requested relief, when there was no opportunity for Plaintiff to
object. Plaintiff first learned the Trial Court would address the Newly-Filed Claims
when it granted summary judgment on all claims, even those absent from Sissons’
motion. Plaintiff did argue at the hearing that the concepts of “inherent
undiscoverability,” “objective verifiability” and constructive notice did not apply to
a DTPA claim in the amended petition. (R.R. Vol. II, pp. 18-21).
III. DESPITE HIS BURDEN TO DO SO, SISSONS STILL FAILED TO (1)
ESTABLISH THE DATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ACCRUED, AND (2)
NEGATE THE DISCOVERY RULE.
The entirety of Sissons’ argument concerning the date Plaintiff’s causes of
action accrued (Section II of his Brief) and his argument for why the discovery rule
does not apply in this case (Section III of his Brief) is based upon his underlying
assertion that Plaintiff’s “injury” occurred on June 8, 2009—the date a single blade
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 9
in the Right Engine of the Aircraft failed as a result of HCF. Indeed, Sissons makes
the following references to Plaintiff’s “injury” in his Brief:
• “Appellant’s injury, and hence when the causes of action accrued,
occurred no later than June 8, 2009, when one of the engines failed
in flight.”
• “On the day that the engine catastrophically failed, June 8, 2009,
Appellant knew that it had suffered an injury and that the engine
failure was the result of a failed compressor turbine blade.”
• “More than 6 years passed between the date Appellant knew that it
suffered a catastrophic injury, in June 8, 2009, and the date Appellant
filed its negligence and fraud claims in the Court Below, on November
4, 2015.”
• “The injury alleged to have been suffered occurred on June 8, 2009,
when the engine catastrophically failed in flight.”
See Appellee’s Brief at pp. x, 1, 4, 9 (emphasis added).
There are multiple flaws with Sissons’ claim that Plaintiff was “injured” on
June 8, 2009.
First, the “injury” that is the subject of this lawsuit is Plaintiff having to re-
install—on both engines—the CT blades that were installed too short and below the
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 10
manufacturer’s standards. The “injury” in this case (as opposed to the injury asserted
in the Florida Case against Century Turbines) is not, as Sissons would have this
Court believe, the Right Engine failing. Sissons’ argument that Plaintiff’s injury
occurred on the date the Right Engine failed could only possibly make sense if the
Right Engine failure was caused by short blades. But there is no evidence of that.
The only evidence before the Court is that the Right Engine failed as a result of HCF
and had nothing to do with blade length. (CR 104, 106, 107).
Second, Sissons’ argument that claims against him began to accrue on the date
of the Right Engine failure presumes that he did something wrong in connection with
that engine failure. Indeed, Sissons claims in his Brief that, “Appellant uses much
of its brief in this Court trying to establish that it could not have known the exact
nature of Appellee’s alleged wrongdoing or full extent of its damages, and urging
this Court to find that accrual does not start until Appellant knew of the precise
nature of the alleged wrongdoing of Appellee.” See Appellee’s Brief (emphasis
added) at p. 7. But this is not a case of Plaintiff not knowing the “exact nature of
Sissons’ wrongdoing” as of the date of the Right Engine failure; this is a case of
Plaintiff having no reason to believe (and still having no reason to believe) that
Sissons did anything at all wrong in connection with that engine failure that was
caused by single fractured blade. Thus, it makes no sense for the Right Engine
failure to be the operative date for limitations purposes for the claims against
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 11
Sissons. Sissons apparently believes that claims against the entity that did the work
on the engines (Century Turbines) accrue on the same date as the claims against him
(the inspector of the work). In doing so, Sissons wholly fails to recognize that the
wrongful acts of him and Century Turbines are different and the injuries suffered are
different.
Third, Sissons’ argument completely ignores the fact that the Left Engine
(and all 58 CT blades contained therein) did not fail on June 8, 2009 or that the other
57 CT Blades in the Right Engine did not fail on June 8, 2009. In fact, despite
Plaintiff making these points in its Appellant’s Brief, Sissons did not mention the
Left Engine or short blades at all in his Appellee’s Brief.
Fourth, Sissons’ argument presumes that engine failure and IA liability go
hand-in-hand. Without directly telling the Court in so many words, Sissons is
arguing that once an aircraft engine fails, the aircraft owner is on notice of claims
against an IA. But there can be engine failure without IA liability. Indeed, as noted,
there is no claim that Sissons did anything wrong with respect to the HCF that caused
the Right Engine failure. Likewise, there can be IA liability without engine failure.
Put another way, at the time the Right Engine failed, on what basis would Plaintiff
have sued Sissons? At that time, it had no idea that the CT blades were installed too
short and there was no basis for imposing liability on Sissons with respect to the
Right Engine failure.
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 12
The bottom line is this: the uncontroverted summary judgment evidence is
that Plaintiff did not know that the CT blades in both engines were installed below
the manufacturer’s specifications until May, 2014 (C.R. 223, 247-49), and thus,
Plaintiff did not know of its “injuries” until that date. Rather than finding evidence
to rebut Plaintiff’s evidence in this regard, Sissons chose to focus on a completely
separate injury (Right Engine failure) caused by something completely unrelated to
blade length (a blade cracking from HCF) to establish the date Plaintiff’s claims
accrued. In doing so, Sissons misses the mark on limitations issues and fails to carry
his burden of demonstrating when Plaintiff’s claims accrued and negating the
discovery rule.
IV. SISSONS’ ARGUMENT TO REBUT FRAUDULENT
CONCEALMENT RELIES SOLELY UPON THE INJURY BEING
ONE FRACTURED CT BLADE IN THE RIGHT ENGINE. SISSONS
FAILED TO ADDRESS OR REBUT PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT ON
THE APPLICATION OF THE FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
DOCTRINE. THE “INJURY” SISSONS IS BEING SUED FOR IS THE
INSTALLATION OF PARTS THAT WERE PROHIBITED IN BOTH
ENGINES AND WHICH HE FALSELY ATTESTED TO MEETING
THE MANUFACTURER AND FAA STANDARDS.
In arguing that fraudulent concealment does not apply in this case, Sissons
first cherry picks the deposition testimony of Mr. Nardi, Fall Air’s owner (see
Appellee’s Brief at pp. 15, 16), by citing to Plaintiff’s original theory of the Florida
Case that the part number of the broken blade in the Right Engine may have indicated
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 13
a blade swap. If a blade swap was done by Century Turbines, by the vendor who
performed the work, Mr. Nardi explained that Sissons would not have seen it in any
documentation by Century Turbines. What Sissons does not address is Mr. Nardi’s
Affidavit. (C.R. 245-251). His affidavit explained that it was the second expert
examination in the Florida Case that revealed that Sissons misrepresented the Form
337 regarding the work being performed in accordance with Pratt and Whitney and
FAA standards and that short blades were installed in both engines. (See C.R. 247-
250).
The fracture of the blade and Right Engine failure had absolutely nothing to
do with improper blade length. Improper blade length was a separate and distinct
injury to Plaintiff. The improper and unauthorized parts were installed in both
engines. The fractured blade had nothing to do with improper blade length. The
fracture was caused by HCF. (C.R. 127-129, 135-137). The injury of the short blade
installation was not uncovered until May 21, 2014. (C.R. 248). This was unrebutted
by any of Sissons’ evidence. The short blades did not cause any failure of either
engine. The “injury” Sissons was sued for was authorizing the installation of parts
that are prohibited by the manufacturer and the FAA in aircraft engines which
Sissons falsely attested to on Form 337 as meeting the manufacturer and FAA
requirements.
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 14
Sissons does not address case law cited by Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s reasonable
diligence to uncover fraud is a fact question for jury to determine (Appellant’s Brief
p. 37) or case law that fraud and/or concealment deal with issues of intent and state
of mind and are factual questions for a jury’s resolution. Factual disputes are not to
be resolved in favor of the movant at summary judgment.
V. IT IS UNKNOWN WHY SISSONS IS ARGUING AND CITING CASE
LAW ON AN “INFORMAL” OR “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP”
FIDUCIARY DUTY. PLAINTIFF HAS REQUESTED THIS COURT
TO DECLARE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IA AND
AIRCRAFT OWNER A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP AS A
MATTER OF LAW, LIKE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP.
Plaintiff made clear in its Appellant’s Brief that it was not asking this
Honorable Court to declare a fiduciary duty based upon an “informal” or “special
relationship.” (See Appellant’s Brief at p. 45). Instead, Plaintiff has requested this
Honorable Court to declare a fiduciary duty as a matter of law between an aircraft
owner and an inspector designee of the FAA. Plaintiff understands the significance
of this request. However, imagine case law holding that there is no fiduciary duty
between an IA and the aircraft owner. The consequences to the public would be
devastating. An aircraft is a dangerous instrumentality. If an IA makes
representations on an FAA Form 337, the aircraft owners rely upon those
representations in making determinations that the aircraft is airworthy. This reliance
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 15
upon the IA includes private aircraft and commercial airline owners. Sissons could
have done the inspection for Southwest Airlines. There is no difference or
distinction as to what Sissons’ obligations are as an FAA designee when he inspects
a private or commercial aircraft.
That relationship between IA and aircraft owner is no different than an
attorney-client relationship. The owners are not experts in aviation mechanics,
manufacturer’s and FAA requirements, but the IA is. The owners and the FAA rely
upon the IA to perform the inspection and decide to disapprove the work or to
approve it for flight of the aircraft. In an attorney-client relationship, typically one
person or entity is harmed as the client by the breach of that fiduciary relationship
and such harm is not property damage, physical injury or death. In the relationship
between IA and aircraft owner, the breach of the fiduciary duty can result in all the
above damages to the aircraft owner, crew, and passengers, along with damage to
the general public as a result of the aircraft crashing.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Fall Air, Inc. prays that this Court reverse the Trial
Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Paul Sissons, remand
the case to the Trial Court consistent with such a reversal, and grant Plaintiff all such
other and further relief to which it may be entitled.
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 16
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Frederick C. Morello
Frederick C. Morello
Lead counsel
FREDERICK C. MORELLO PA
Florida State Bar No. 0714933
111 N. Frederick Ave., Second Floor
Daytona Beach, FL 32113
Phone: (386) 252-0754
Fax: (386) 252-0921
Email: live2freefly@gmail.com
Robert J. Wood, Jr.
State Bar No. 00788712
robert@mylawteam.com
T. Blake Edwards
State Bar No. 24050553
blake@mylawteam.com
LINDQUIST WOOD EDWARDS LLP
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2280
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 382-9789 – phone
(214) 953-0410 – fax
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 because the
sections covered by the rule contain 4122 words. The font used in the body of the
brief is no smaller than 14 points, and the font used in the footnotes is no smaller
than 12 points.
/s/Frederick C. Morello
Frederick C. Morello
PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify that on January 3, 2018, this Appellant’s Reply Brief was served on
Defendant’s counsel pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(b) as
follows:
Mr. John J. Reenan (Via Electronic Filing and Email)
jreenan@kmlawpllc.com
Texas Bar No. 00789777
Christopher S. Kilgore (Via Electronic Filing and Email)
ckilgore@kmlawpllc.com
Texas Bar No. 11398350
Kilgore / McCown, PLLC
2201 Main Street, Suite 212
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 296-4850
(972) 532-6496 – facsimile
/s/Frederick C. Morello
Frederick C. Morello
No. 03-17-00571-CV
Appellant’s Reply Brief 18