Vuksanovich v. Airbus Group HQ, Inc.

Background

The court considered two consolidated actions brought by former JetBlue flight attendants Kristi Vuksanovich and Amysue Salvatore. Each alleged that defects in the “bleed” air system used in Airbus A320-family aircraft allowed toxic substances to enter passenger cabins and caused physical and neurological injuries. Their spouses, Mark Vuksanovich and Michael Salvatore, asserted derivative claims for loss of consortium.

The claims included strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and loss of consortium. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and were inadequately pleaded. The court applied New York law.

Airbus Americas Engineering, Inc.

The court dismissed all claims against Airbus Americas Engineering, Inc. The opinion states that this entity had merged into Airbus Americas, Inc. in 2017 and no longer existed as an independent legal entity when the consolidated cases were filed. The plaintiffs did not present an argument explaining why their claims against that entity should survive.

Timeliness of the Salvatore claims

New York’s toxic-exposure limitations rule generally gives a plaintiff three years from discovering the physical condition underlying the claim, or from when the condition should reasonably have been discovered. The court explained that the limitations period generally begins when the plaintiff notices the symptoms, not when a doctor identifies their cause.

Amysue Salvatore alleged that serious symptoms began in January 2017, including pain, difficulty breathing, and worsening eyesight, and that her illness progressively worsened throughout that year. The court rejected her attempt to treat those early symptoms as temporary and separate from the later permanent injuries because her complaint alleged continuing and worsening illness. The court also concluded that her inability to identify the cause of the symptoms did not delay the limitations period.

Because Salvatore filed suit in October 2020, more than three years after the alleged January 2017 onset, the court held that her personal-injury claims were time-barred. Michael Salvatore’s loss-of-consortium claims were also untimely because they depended on the underlying personal-injury claims. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss as to all claims asserted by Amysue and Michael Salvatore.

Timeliness of the Vuksanovich claims

Kristi Vuksanovich alleged earlier symptoms that were temporary: symptoms after flights in June and July 2017 lasted about one to two weeks, and blurred vision during an August 2017 flight was not alleged to have continued afterward. She alleged that her permanent condition developed later. The court held that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, it could not determine as a matter of law that she had discovered her permanent neurological condition during the earlier episodes.

The court treated the alleged permanent condition as a latent injury under New York law. It also found that the earlier symptoms were plausibly too isolated or minor to trigger the limitations period, noting that Vuksanovich returned to work after the episodes and did not allege seeking medical care until November 2017, within the limitations period. The court therefore denied dismissal of Kristi Vuksanovich’s claims as untimely, while noting that the defendants could renew the timeliness argument later on a more developed factual record.

Mark Vuksanovich added his loss-of-consortium claim after the original complaint was filed. The court held that New York’s relation-back rule allowed the claim to be treated as filed with the original complaint because it arose from the same events and theory of liability, and the defendants had notice of the underlying circumstances without being prejudiced. His derivative claim was therefore timely.

Strict products liability and negligence

The court held that Kristi Vuksanovich adequately pleaded strict-products-liability and negligence claims based on both failure to warn and defective design.

For the failure-to-warn theory, the complaint alleged that the bleed air system could allow toxic hydraulic fluid, engine oil, deicing fluid, and other contaminants into the cabin, and that Airbus aircraft had experienced repeated fume events. It also alleged that Federal Aviation Administration materials had identified concerns about cabin air quality and toxic-contaminant events. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly supported an inference that the defendants knew or should have known about the risks.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Vuksanovich’s later flight showed that she would not have followed an adequate warning. At the pleading stage, New York law generally presumes that a plaintiff would have heeded a warning, and the allegations did not overcome that presumption.

For the design-defect theory, the court found sufficient allegations that the bleed air system posed a substantial risk of harm, that a safer alternative design was feasible, and that the alleged defect caused Vuksanovich’s injuries. The complaint identified an aircraft design that did not use engine bleed air and also alleged a system using electrically driven compressors and dedicated cabin air inlets. The court rejected the argument that New York law barred reliance on a later-developed alternative design. It also held that the complaint did not need to allege that the defendants knew of the design defect to state these claims.

Warranty claims

The court dismissed Kristi Vuksanovich’s breach-of-express-warranty claim. An express warranty requires an affirmative statement of fact or promise by the seller that formed part of the bargain and was relied upon. Vuksanovich did not identify any representation by the defendants about the aircraft on which an express-warranty claim could be based. The court would not rely on an argument raised only in the opposition brief and not alleged in the complaint.

The court separately concluded that Vuksanovich adequately pleaded breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The complaint alleged that the aircraft were defectively designed, that the defect existed when they were delivered, and that the defect caused her injuries. The court therefore allowed that claim to proceed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to all claims against Airbus Americas Engineering, Inc.; all claims asserted by Amysue and Michael Salvatore; and Kristi Vuksanovich’s express-warranty claim. It denied the motion as to the other claims asserted by Kristi and Mark Vuksanovich. The court ordered the defendants to answer the Vuksanovich complaint and directed the clerk to close the Salvatore action.