1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JAIR ANTONIO PEREZ MAZA, 

individually, and as PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

OF NURIS DEL CARMEN MAZA 

BERTEL, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CONTINENTAL MOTORS INC D/B/A 

CONTINENTAL MOTORS GROUP 

and 

CONTINENTAL MOTORS SERVICES, 

INC. 

and 

PIPER AIRCRAFT, INC. 

and 

PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION c/o 

THE PIPER AIRCRAFT 

CORPORATION IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST c/o HOWARD BERLIN 

TRUSTEE FOR THE PIPER AIRCRAFT 

CORPORATION IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

1:22-cv-23325-XXXX

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 1 of 23
2

BACKGROUND 

1. This action arises out of the October 13, 2020 crash of a Piper 28RT-201T 

aircraft, registration HK2533G (“subject aircraft”), due to failure of its Continental Motors 

engine (S/N 1003094) (“subject engine”) while in flight in Colombia. Continental had serviced 

the engine only a few days prior, on approximately September 28, 2020. NURIS DEL CARMEN 

MAZA BERTEL was a passenger and killed in the crash. 

THE PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff, JAIR ANTONIO PEREZ MAZA, is an individual and resident of 

Colombia (address CC. 1.047.396.241, Barrio Lo Amador, Calle 36 #20B39, Cartagena, 

Colombia), and at all relevant times hereto, was and is the natural son of NURIS DEL CARMEN 

MAZA BERTEL, deceased. 

3. Plaintiff JAIR ANTONIO PEREZ MAZA is the PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE OF NURIS DEL CARMEN MAZA BERTEL, which is 

being administered in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida Probate Division (In 

Re: Estate of Nuris Del Carmen Maza Bertel, Deceased); Case No. 2022-005431-CP-02. 

4. Defendant CONTINENTAL MOTORS INC D/B/A CONTINENTAL MOTORS 

GROUP (hereinafter “CONTINENTAL MOTORS”) is a Delaware Corporation that maintains 

its principal place of business at 2039 Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615-1293. 

5. Defendant CONTINENTAL MOTORS SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter 

“CONTINENTAL SERVICES”) is a Delaware Corporation that maintains its principal place of 

business at 2039 Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615-1293. 

6. Defendants CONTINENTAL MOTORS and CONTINENTAL SERVICES are 

collectively referred to as “CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS”. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 2 of 23
3

7. CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and / or its predecessors, 

manufactured and designed the original engine, selling it to PIPER defendants in this court’s 

jurisdiction, and subsequently overhauled / remanufactured the original engine on approximately 

September 20, 2010. The newly remanufactured subject engine was then installed onto the 

subject aircraft on or about December 10, 2020. 

8. CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and / or its predecessors 

subsequently maintained the subject engine in the United States, including in this district, up 

until approximately September 28, 2020, a few days prior to the crash. CONTINENTAL 

DEFENDANTS also inspected the subject engine subsequent to the crash, in the United States 

and, upon information and belief, in this judicial district. Despite Plaintiffs’ requests to preserve 

the engine and evidence related to this crash, CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS have not 

responded to requests to inspect the subject engine which was last in their possession. 

9. PIPER AIRCRAFT, INC. (a/k/a, d/b/a or f/k/a New Piper Aircraft, Inc.) 

(hereinafter referred to as “NEW PIPER”) is believed and therefore averred to be organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, but whose principal place of business is in Vero 

Beach, Florida. 

10. THE PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION IRREVOCABLE TRUST (a/k/a, 

d/b/a, f/ka Piper Aircraft Corporation) (hereinafter “the PIPER TRUST”) trust governed by 

Florida law that assumed the products liability and “future claims” liability of Piper Aircraft 

Corporation and exists to defend, resolve, litigate, adjust, settle, or otherwise manage the liability 

generated by Piper Aircraft Corporation from the design, manufacture, and sale of defective 

aircraft. For this purpose, the PIPER TRUST conducts its business from the offices of its Trustee 

in Miami, FL. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 3 of 23
4

11. Collectively, NEW PIPER and the PIPER TRUST shall be referred to as “PIPER 

DEFENDANTS”. 

12. Because plaintiff has only recently learned of the failures of PIPER 

DEFENDANTS, with respect to defendant PIPER TRUST, plaintiff had no choice but to name it 

as a defendant herein while simultaneously going through the claims process in the Southern 

District of Florida. 

13. While PIPER DEFENDANTS assembled, designed, and manufactured the subject 

aircraft in approximately 1979, after purchasing and then installing the original engine from 

CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS in Florida, PIPER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, after 

the September 2010 overhaul and December 2010 installation of the subject engine on the 

subject PIPER aircraft through present day, continuously failed to provide guidance or warnings 

alerting operators of low levels of lubrication/oil in a timely manner to avoid catastrophic failure, 

or procedures to quickly recognize and safely and reliably land the aircraft prior to its engine 

reaching a state of catastrophic failure, ultimately too late for most pilots to recover, including 

the pilot of the subject aircraft which killed plaintiffs’ decedent herein. 

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 

alleges that at all times relevant hereto, each Defendant, either directly or as a result of actions or 

inactions by one of its predecessors, was the owner, servant, agent, joint-venturer, employee or 

employer of each of its co-Defendants, and in doing the acts hereinafter mentioned, each 

Defendant was acting within the scope of its authority and with the permission and consent of its 

co-Defendants, and each of them, and that said acts of each Defendant was ratified by said 

Defendant's co-Defendants, and each of them and every Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 4 of 23
5

principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other Defendant as an agent, 

employee and/or joint venturer. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. This is an action for damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, 

exclusive of costs and interest and otherwise within the jurisdiction of this court. 

16. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over all defendants. All defendants do 

business within the State of Florida, by availing themselves to the business opportunities here, 

advertising the availability of parts and information, shipping parts and literature into the state, 

and receiving money from those businesses in this state who order goods, services, and parts, and 

pay for them. In addition, defendants supply literature to aircraft owners located within the state, 

and to mechanics, fixed base operators, and others who perform aircraft maintenance in this state 

for purposes of providing information and knowledge as to parts that can be purchased from the 

defendants for the repair or replacement of aircraft and their components, including but not 

limited to the remanufacturer / overhaul of the engine by CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS on 

or about September 20, 2010, on information and belief, in this judicial district, along with its 

subsequent installation in the subject aircraft on or about December 10, 2010. 

17. Up until a few weeks prior to the crash, the subject aircraft and subject engine 

were maintained by CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS or authorized CONTINENTAL 

DEFENDANTS personnel in the United States and, upon information and belief, in this judicial 

district. 

18. CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS also inspected the subject engine subsequent to 

the crash, in the United States and, upon information and belief, in this judicial district 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 5 of 23
6

19. Jurisdiction is further proper as defendants, and each of them, routinely sell their 

products and services in and to Florida businesses and residents, as CONTINENTAL 

DEFENDANTS and/or their predecessors did herein with their contract with PIPER 

DEFENDANTS, which called for the purchase of CONTINENTAL engines, including the 

subject engine, by PIPER DEFENDANTS, and then the installation of said engines at PIPER 

DEFENDANTS’ facilities in Florida, including installation in the subject aircraft, and then sale 

of the subject aircraft and other PIPER aircraft by PIPER DEFENDANTS in Florida. 

20. Defendants, and each of them, maintain systematic and continuous contacts with 

Florida and/or have registered agents here. Jurisdiction is proper under the Florida Long Arm 

Statute and the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution. 

21. Venue is proper in that each of the defendants regularly conduct business in this 

County and/or may be served here. Venue is further proper as the defendants regularly conduct 

business here and avail themselves to this County. 

22. Further, suit against PIPER TRUST defendants requires the filing of the 

complaint in this judicial district. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

23. According the official investigation, during the execution of a VFR flight in the 

private aircraft Piper PA28RT HK2335G, subject aircraft, between the Simon Bolivar airport 

(SKSM) of Santa Marta, and the Guaymaral airport (SKGY) of Bogota D.C., after 02:33 flight 

hours, a malfunction of the subject engine occurred with a subsequent emergency declaration by 

the pilot. 

24. The investigation revealed the following series of events during the flight of the 

subject aircraft on October 13, 2000: 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 6 of 23
7

At 16:30 HL, communications were transferred to Bogota lnformacion (BOG FIC) and 

Pilate reported: 

"... lateral to Barbossa responding at 6630...". 

The ATC gave instructions to notify the Ubate position for a change. 

At 16:39:16 HL (02:33 after takeoff), Pilate reported to ATC: 

"...two three three five golf MAYDAY MAYDAY two three three five golf..." 

At 16:39:25 HL (9 sec. after MAYDAY declaration), Pilate added to the frequency: 

"... I have power problems, I have power problems two three three five golf..." 

After crossing information with ATC to provide more flight information, the pilot 

reported being close to the town of Chiquinquira. 

At 16:40:19 HL (01:03 min after MAYDAY), the Pilot reported to ATC: 

"... I am going to try to approach Las Acacias with two three three five golf...". 

At 16:41:32 HL, Pilate confirmed the estimated frequency of seventeen (17) minutes to 

Las Acacias. 

At 16:44:35 HL, Pilate reported leaving the Ubate position and following that, at 

16:44:47 HL, (05:09 min after MAYDAY declaration) reported: 

. Received, I think .... (unintelligible) ... nothing ... because the oil pressure dropped, 

YWY well, I'm going, I'm moving ahead to see if I/ego Las Acacias ... " 

The ATC instructed Pilato to notify the Guaymaral Surface frequency (GYM GND) in 

case of losing contact. 

At 16:48:12 HL, (09:28 min after MAYDAY declaration), Pilate reported6: 

"... Leaving Ubate, close to Ubate, I'm going to see if I can get to... Las Acacias, on two 

three three five golf, I have a loss of oil pressure... and smoke in the cabin... ". 

At that time, the BOG FIC and GYM GND ATC units were alerted to the news and 

pending any request and information from aircraft HK2335G. 

At 16:51:01 HL (12:17 min after MAYDAY declaration), the Pilot of aircraft HK2335G 

reported: 

"... Engine failure on two three three five golf, engine fa/la...". 

After this last communication, no further information was received from El Pilato 

regarding aircraft HK2335G. 

25. The pilot had attempted to make a forced landing in an unprepared field located 

near the municipality of Ubate, Cundinamarca. During the maneuver, the subject aircraft collided 

with trees, followed by impact with the ground, killing three people including the pilot and also 

plaintiffs’ decedent herein, and additionally causing injuries to a surviving infant traveling in the 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 7 of 23
8

plane. The trees it initially made contact with, the first impact with the ground, and the final 

position of the subject aircraft are shown below, from the investigative report: 

26. During the investigation, the subject engine was transported to the United States, 

on information and belief within this judicial district, where representatives of CONTINENTAL 

DEFENDANTS inspected it, finding signs of engine failure, including but not limited to loss of 

oil resulting in a detonation event. 

27. The investigation revealed, among other things, the following: 

In the upper section of the engine, adjacent to the No. 2 cylinder and the fuel distributor, 

there was a fracture of the power casing, with a diameter of approximately 4 cm, and a 

linear fracture of 8 cm in length towards the engine gasket, with obvious oil spill. 

Inspection of the engine revealed engine operation without lubrication, excessive friction, 

high temperature components, and rupture of the No. 1 and 2 connecting rod caps. 

Piston No. 6 presented evidence of high temperature, with significant damage related to 

the melting of the material in one section, attributable to a detonation effect. 

The actions of Pilate in command in response to the failure presented were carried out in 

accordance with the aircraft's Operations Manual. 

The engine had the maintenance services required by the manufacturer and there was no 

evidence of non-compliance with Bulletins or Airworthiness Directives. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 8 of 23
9

The hermetic failure of piston No. 6, due to the action of the detonation, caused the 

engine to become pressurized due to the entry of gases into the power crankcase, causing 

the oil to be expelled by pressure through the engine exhaust. 

Metal particles and debris were found in the oil pan, which could have clogged and 

contaminated the oil supply necessary for effective lubrication and likely caused further 

engine damage. 

The motor was found to be stiff to turn prior to disassembly. It is likely that rotation 

would have been even more difficult when the engine was warm and internal clearances 

were reduced. The damage quickly reached a level where engine operation was no longer 

possible. 

28. Plaintiffs have requested an inspection of the subject engine from 

CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS but they have not provided either the location or permission 

to inspect it, and, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs believe the subject engine to be stored 

in this judicial district. 

DAMAGES 

29. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’, and each of their actions and or 

inactions, NURIS DEL CARMEN MAZA BERTEL died in the crash, survived by her son, 

Plaintiff JAIR ANTONIO PEREZ MAZA. 

30. Plaintiffs hereby demand recovery under the applicable wrongful death and 

survival acts/statutes, for all recoverable compensatory damages, including but not limited to loss 

of net accumulations, pecuniary losses, conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses, preimpact fear, severe emotional distress, loss of pecuniary benefits, loss of contributions for 

support, loss of parental, marital, and household services, loss of society and comfort, funeral 

expenses, and mental anguish resulting from the deaths of Plaintiffs’ decedent. 

31. Plaintiffs demand all available remedies pursuant to the Florida Wrongful Death 

Act, F.S. §768, et seq. and the Florida Survival Act, F.S. §46.021. To the extent another state's 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 9 of 23
10

law is applied on the issue of damages, Plaintiffs demand all available remedies under such law. 

Plaintiffs request damages to be determined by a jury. 

COUNT I 

(STRICT LIABILITY) 

(Against the Continental Defendants) 

32. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set 

forth at length herein. 

33. The Continental Defendants, and each of them, are in the business of designing, 

inspecting, testing, distributing, selling, supplying, overhauling, rebuilding, servicing, 

supporting, maintaining and/or repairing and selling aircraft engines, and are the type certificate 

holders and/or production certificate holders responsible for ensuring continuing airworthiness 

for the accident model aircraft engine. 

34. The Continental Defendants, and each of them, designed, developed, 

manufactured, assembled, inspected, distributed, sold supplies, overhauled, rebuilt, serviced, 

supported, maintained, modified and/or repaired the accident aircraft engine and its component 

parts including the engine oil system and fuel delivery system as well as its indication systems, 

which were, defective and unreasonably dangerous, from the date of overhaul, September 10, 

2010 through the date of the crash. 

35. In addition the Continental Defendants sold the overhauled subject engine, and 

component parts to its first user to be installed in the subject aircraft. The dangerous defects 

which caused this accident existed at the time the overhauled subject engine and component parts 

were first sold by the Defendants. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 10 of 23
11

36. The overhauled subject engine and component parts were in the same condition at 

the time of the accident as they were when first sold, on or about December 2010. 

37. The dangerous defects, which included a failure to have everything necessary to 

make the aircraft safe, and which rendered the overhauled subject engine unreasonably 

dangerous were, but are not limited to: 

a. An inability of the engine to properly function under all flight conditions; 

b. Unreliable indications of engine parameters, including, but not limited to, oil 

pressure; 

c. Improper selection of the powerplant; 

d. Improper selection of the turbo charging system; 

e. Improper design of the turbocharging system; 

f. Improperly designing a turbocharging system that did not allow for a proper 

fuel air mixture to be delivered to the engine under all conditions; 

g. Use of a turbocharger which was prone to failure and malfunction; 

h. Use of a turbocharging system which, if it malfunctioned, would cause the 

engine to lose power; 

i. Improper design and selection of the fuel delivery system; 

j. Improper selection of engine components; 

k. Improper warnings concerning loss of power; 

l. Improper warnings concerning loss of oil pressure; 

m.Improper instructions concerning loss of power; 

n. Improper instructions concerning loss of oil pressure; 

o. Improper design and selection of the oil pressure transducer; 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 11 of 23
12

p. Failure to ensure that fuel would be supplied under all conditions; 

q. Failure to properly test the subject engine; 

r. Failure to provide a means of restoring engine power; 

s. Failure to select a proper fuel delivery system; 

t. Improper and dangerous selection of the fuel pump; 

u. Improper design of the fuel pump; 

v. Failure to ensure the fuel pump functioned under all conditions; 

w. Failure to select a boost pump capable of supplying adequate fuel to the 

engine; 

x. Failure to warn owners, pilots, operators and mechanics of the defects in the 

accident aircraft; 

y. Dangerous and defective design, manufacture, assembly and certification of the 

aircraft and its powerplant and associated components, including the overhauled subject engine 

and its component parts; 

z. Dangerous and defective failure to warn owners, pilots, operators and 

mechanics of the failures that could occur, including the severity of failure and urgent need to 

land as soon as possible; and 

aa. Other defects which will be determined. 

38. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, plaintiffs 

suffered damages as alleged above. 

COUNT II 

(NEGLIGENCE) 

(Against the Continental Defendants) 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 12 of 23
13

39. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set 

forth at length herein. 

40. The Continental Defendants, and each of them, owed duties to the Plaintiffs to act 

as a reasonably prudent manufacturer, designer, and seller of the overhauled subject engine and 

associated components, and to ensure the airworthiness of the subject engine. 

41. In addition to the duties imposed by common law, these defendants were subject 

to duties imposed by regulatory law. 

42. The Continental Defendants, and each of them, breached their duties and were 

negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless by the virtue of the following: 

a. Failing to provide an overhauled engine which would properly function under all 

flight conditions; 

b. Failing to design and install proper indicators of engine parameters, including, but 

not limited to oil pressure; 

c. Improperly designing and manufacturing the powerplant and the overhauled 

subject engine; 

d. Improperly designing and manufacturing the turbo charging system and its 

components; 

e. Failing to properly design and manufacture the induction system; 

f. Improperly designing and selecting the fuel delivery system; 

g. Improperly selecting engine components and accessories; 

h. Failing to provide proper warnings concerning loss of power; 

i. Failing to provide proper warnings concerning loss of oil pressure; 

j. Failing to provide proper instructions concerning loss of power; 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 13 of 23
14

k. Failing to provide proper instructions concerning loss of oil pressure; 

l. Failing to properly design and select the oil pressure transducer; 

m. Failing to ensure that fuel would be supplied under all conditions; 

n. Failing to properly design a turbocharging system such that it did not allow for a 

proper fuel air mixture to be delivered to the engine under all conditions; 

o. Failing to use a turbocharger which was not prone to failure and malfunction; 

p. Failing to use a turbo charging system which, if it malfunctioned, would not cause 

the engine to lose power; 

q. Failing to properly test the subject engine; 

r. Failing to provide a means of restoring engine power; 

s. Failing to design and select a proper fuel delivery and metering system; 

t. Selecting a dangerous and defective fuel pump; 

u. Failing to select a boost pump capable of supplying adequate fuel to the engine; 

v. Failing to provide an overhauled engine and associated components which would 

be safe and fit for flight; 

w. Failing to provide an overhauled aircraft engine system that complied with 

regulations; 

x. Failing to warn owners, pilots, operators and mechanics of the failures that could 

occur and the severity of those failures, and the necessity to quickly land the airplane 

y. Failing to warn owners, pilots, operators and mechanics of the probability of 

failures; 

z. Failing to provide adequate maintenance and/or continuing airworthiness 

instructions, emergency procedures and warnings for the subject engine; and 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 14 of 23
15

aa. Other negligent acts which will be determined. 

43. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, plaintiffs 

suffered damages as alleged above. 

COUNT III 

(BREACH OF CONTRACT) 

(Against the Continental Defendants) 

44. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set 

forth at length herein. 

45. The pilot and operator of the subject aircraft bought the overhauled subject engine 

from CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, for placement into the subject 

aircraft. 

46. In exchange for valuable consideration, the Continental defendants did agree to 

provide him an overhauled aircraft engine and component parts that would be safe and 

airworthy. 

47. Plaintiffs’ decedent, as a passenger, was a third party beneficiary to this 

contractual agreement. 

48. CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS breached the contract by failing to provide a 

safe and airworthy overhauled engine for the subject aircraft. 

49. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, plaintiffs 

suffered damages as alleged above. 

COUNT IV 

(BREACH OF IMPLIED AND EXPRESS WARRANTIES) 

(Against the Continental Defendants) 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 15 of 23
16

50. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set 

forth at length herein. 

51. At all relevant times herein, the CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS, and each of 

them, were and are now merchants engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling, 

supplying, supporting, integrating, assembling, overhauling, and remanufacturing aircraft 

engines, including the subject engine and components as well as associated operation, repair, 

overhaul, installation and product support materials. 

52. CONTINENTAL DEFENDANTS, and each of them, described and advertised 

their goods and services for sale, including the overhauling of the subject engine and 

components. Such descriptions and advertisements included, but were not limited to, advertising 

brochures, instructions, manuals, specification sheets, order sheets, and other product statements. 

53. These descriptions and affirmations concerning the goods resulted in express 

warranties that the goods sold by the defendants were as described and safe for their intended 

use. 

54. In addition, these defendants provided an express warranty for the accident 

aircraft engine and component parts. 

55. These descriptions, representations, and affirmations resulted in oral and written 

express and implied warranties which regard the accident aircraft engine and component parts. 

56. Defendants expressly and impliedly warranted that the subject aircraft and its 

overhauled subject engine would operate safely. 

57. These descriptions, affirmations, and express warranties became part of the bases 

of the bargain of their sales and said warranties ran to Plaintiff as a third party beneificiary, as 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 16 of 23
17

passenger in the airplane operated and owned by the gentleman that defendants provided their 

warranties to. 

58. The purchaser further relied upon these warranties in operating and traveling in 

the subject aircraft. 

59. As a result of the sales activities of the Defendants, each and all of them, 

expressly and impliedly warranted that their individual goods were merchantable, fit for their 

ordinary purpose, properly labeled and packaged for sale and installation, and conformed to the 

promises and affirmations of fact made on their containers and labels. These implied warnings 

ran from Defendants to plaintiffs’ decedent as a third party beneficiary passenger of the airplane. 

60. As a result of the sales activities of the Defendants, each and all them impliedly 

warranted that their goods were fit for their particular purpose, and each and all knew that their 

skill and judgment would be relied upon and were, in fact, relied upon by the purchaser of their 

individual goods. 

61. By selling defective goods, the Defendants breached their express warranties and 

the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose and the implied 

warranties arising from the course of dealings and usage of trade. 

62. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, plaintiffs 

suffered damages as alleged above. 

COUNT V 

(STRICT LIABILITY) 

(Against the Piper Defendants) 

63. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set 

forth at length herein. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 17 of 23
18

64. The Piper Defendants, and each of them, are in the business of designing, 

inspecting, testing, distributing, selling, supplying, overhauling, rebuilding, servicing, 

supporting, maintaining and/or repairing and selling aircraft, and are the type certificate holders 

and/or production certificate holders responsible for ensuring continuing airworthiness for the 

accident model aircraft. 

65. The Piper Defendants, and each of them, designed, developed, manufactured, 

assembled, inspected, distributed, sold supplies, overhauled, rebuilt, serviced, supported, 

maintained, modified, procured, required specs, installed and/or repaired the subject aircraft 

engine and its component parts including the engine oil system and fuel delivery system as well 

as its indication systems, which were, defective and unreasonably dangerous, from the date of 

overhaul, September 10, 2010 through the date of the crash. 

66. In addition the Piper Defendants bought or provided guidance on installation of 

the overhauled subject engine, and component parts to its first user to be installed in the subject 

aircraft. The dangerous defects which caused this accident existed at the time the overhauled 

subject engine and component parts were first sold by the Defendants. 

67. The overhauled subject engine and component parts were in the same condition at 

the time of the accident as they were when first sold, on or about December 2010. 

68. The dangerous defects, which included a failure to have everything necessary to 

make the aircraft safe, and which rendered the overhauled subject engine unreasonably 

dangerous were, but are not limited to: 

bb. An inability of the engine to properly function under all flight conditions; 

cc. Unreliable indications of engine parameters, including, but not limited to, 

oil pressure; 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 18 of 23
19

dd. Improper selection of the powerplant; 

ee. Improper selection of the turbo charging system; 

ff. Improper design of the turbocharging system; 

gg. Improperly designing a turbocharging system that did not allow for a 

proper fuel air mixture to be delivered to the engine under all conditions; 

hh. Use of a turbocharger which was prone to failure and malfunction; 

ii. Use of a turbocharging system which, if it malfunctioned, would cause the 

engine to lose power; 

jj. Improper design and selection of the fuel delivery system; 

kk. Improper selection of engine components; 

ll. Improper warnings concerning loss of power; 

mm. Improper warnings concerning loss of oil pressure; 

nn. Improper instructions concerning loss of power; 

oo. Improper instructions concerning loss of oil pressure; 

pp. Improper design and selection of the oil pressure transducer; 

qq. Failure to ensure that fuel would be supplied under all conditions; 

rr. Failure to properly test the subject engine; 

ss.Failure to provide a means of restoring engine power; 

tt. Failure to select a proper fuel delivery system; 

uu. Improper and dangerous selection of the fuel pump; 

vv. Improper design of the fuel pump; 

ww. Failure to ensure the fuel pump functioned under all conditions; 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 19 of 23
20

xx. Failure to select a boost pump capable of supplying adequate fuel to the 

engine; 

yy. Failure to warn owners, pilots, operators and mechanics of the defects in 

the accident aircraft; 

zz. Dangerous and defective design, manufacture, assembly and certification 

of the aircraft and its powerplant and associated components, including the overhauled subject 

engine and its component parts; 

aaa. Dangerous and defective failure to warn owners, pilots, operators and 

mechanics of the failures that could occur, including the severity of failure and urgent need to 

land as soon as possible; and 

bbb. Other defects which will be determined. 

69. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, plaintiffs 

suffered damages as alleged above. 

COUNT VI 

(NEGLIGENCE) 

(Against the Piper Defendants) 

70. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set 

forth at length herein. 

71. The Piper Defendants, and each of them, owed duties to the Plaintiffs to act as a 

reasonably prudent manufacturer, designer, and seller of the overhauled subject engine’s aircraft, 

and associated components, and to ensure the airworthiness of the subject aircraft. 

72. In addition to the duties imposed by common law, these defendants were subject 

to duties imposed by regulatory law. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 20 of 23
21

73. The Piper Defendants, and each of them, breached their duties and were 

negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless by the virtue of the following: 

bb. Failing to provide an overhauled engine which would properly function under all 

flight conditions; 

cc. Failing to design and install proper indicators of engine parameters, including, but 

not limited to oil pressure; 

dd. Improperly designing and manufacturing the powerplant and the overhauled 

subject engine; 

ee. Improperly designing and manufacturing the turbo charging system and its 

components; 

ff. Failing to properly design and manufacture the induction system; 

gg. Improperly designing and selecting the fuel delivery system; 

hh. Improperly selecting engine components and accessories; 

ii. Failing to provide proper warnings concerning loss of power; 

jj. Failing to provide proper warnings concerning loss of oil pressure; 

kk. Failing to provide proper instructions concerning loss of power; 

ll. Failing to provide proper instructions concerning loss of oil pressure; 

mm. Failing to properly design and select the oil pressure transducer; 

nn. Failing to ensure that fuel would be supplied under all conditions; 

oo. Failing to properly design a turbocharging system such that it did not allow for a 

proper fuel air mixture to be delivered to the engine under all conditions; 

pp. Failing to use a turbocharger which was not prone to failure and malfunction; 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 21 of 23
22

qq. Failing to use a turbo charging system which, if it malfunctioned, would not cause 

the engine to lose power; 

rr. Failing to properly test the subject engine; 

ss. Failing to provide a means of restoring engine power; 

tt. Failing to design and select a proper fuel delivery and metering system; 

uu. Selecting a dangerous and defective fuel pump; 

vv. Failing to select a boost pump capable of supplying adequate fuel to the engine; 

ww. Failing to provide an overhauled engine and associated components which would 

be safe and fit for flight; 

xx. Failing to provide an overhauled aircraft engine system that complied with 

regulations; 

yy. Failing to warn owners, pilots, operators and mechanics of the failures that could 

occur and the severity of those failures, and the necessity to quickly land the airplane 

zz. Failing to warn owners, pilots, operators and mechanics of the probability of 

failures; 

aaa. Failing to provide adequate maintenance and/or continuing airworthiness 

instructions, emergency procedures and warnings for the subject engine; and 

bbb. Other negligent acts which will be determined. 

74. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and omissions, plaintiffs 

suffered damages as alleged above. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against all defendants for all damages 

permitted by law, and requests trial by jury of all issues triable as a right by a jury. 

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 22 of 23
23

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Dated: October 13, 2022 BRYANT LAW FIRM 

_____________________________________ 

Randy A. Bryant (FBN: 157945) 

5201 Blue Lagoon Drive | Suite 800 

Miami, FL 33126 

Tel: (305) 456-2777 

Fax: (305) 675-6153 

www.miamiprobatefirm.com 

[AND] 

WILSHIRE LAW FIRM PLC 

A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq (CA Bar No. 228051)

(pro-hac vice forthcoming)

3055 Wilshire Blvd. | 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Tel: (213) 381-9988

Fax: (213) 381-9989

ilyas@wilshirelawfirm.com

teamilyas@wilshirelawfirm.com

/s/ Justin K. Sanchez (for)

Case 1:22-cv-23325-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 23 of 23