Too much time has elapsed for United States Aviation Underwriters Inc. to successfully pursue a subrogation claim against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective airplane component, said a federal appellate court in a ruling Tuesday.

After an airplane was damaged in a 2009 runway accident, New York-based United States Aviation Underwriters indemnified the aircraft's owner and brought a subrogation claim against Tokyo-based Nabtesco Corp. and Nabtesco Aerospace Inc., according to the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in United States Aviation Underwriters Inc. v. Nabtesco Corp.

A key factor in the ruling is the http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20080120/ISSUE01/100023892 General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, which provides for an 18-year “statute of repose,” which is comparable to a statute of limitations.

According to the ruling, on Aug. 17, 2009, a Cessna Citation 560 aircraft was damaged at an airport near Long Beach, Calif., when the nose landing gear collapsed during landing. The collapse allegedly was caused by a defect in the nose landing gear actuator, which is a motor used to extend and retract a plane's front wheels and shock absorbers during takeoff and landing.

The actuator had been manufactured by Nabtesco in April 1990 and installed as a new original part on a Cessna 550 aircraft on Oct. 24, 1990. The Cessna was delivered to its first purchaser on Oct. 30, 1990, more than 18 years before the accident.

%%BREAK%%

At some point, the actuator was removed from the Cessna and installed on the plane that suffered the accident. That plane had been delivered to its first purchaser on Dec. 30, 1991, less than 18 years before the accident.

U.S. Aviation filed a subrogation claim for an undisclosed amount against Nabtesco in 2010 for damage to the accident aircraft. It contended in its lawsuit that the date of delivery of the aircraft referred to in the General Aviation legislation refers to the delivery of the accident aircraft in December 1991, which was before the statute of repose expired.

But the appellate court disagreed.

“We hold that the statute is ambiguous as to whether 'aircraft' refers only to the indivisible delivered plane, or whether it is also includes by reference the component parts of the plane,” said the three-judge panel.

“However, our analysis of the legislative history reveals that Congress intended for the latter definition to apply. Thus, under these circumstances, the 'date of delivery of the aircraft' points to the delivery date of the actuator to its first purchaser.”

As a result, because the accident occurred after the statute of repose had run, the insurer's claim is barred, said the three-judge panel's ruling, in upholding a lower court's summary judgment dismissing the case.

A U.S. Aviation spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.