Court dismisses all claims against helicopter manufacturer Enstrom Helicopter Corporation represented by Chuhak & Tecson

The Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., has dismissed the remaining four counts in a lawsuit brought against Enstrom Helicopter Corporation by Illinois National Insurance Company. The litigation arose from an August 2005 accident involving an Enstrom 480 turbine helicopter at the Goshen, Ind., airport.

Entered by Circuit Court Judge Kathy M. Flanagan on July 18, the ruling represents a major victory for the aviation team at Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., and Attorney Fred C. Begy III, a principal who served as lead defense counsel, and principal Mark A. Stang along with associate Patrick V. Riley.

Two counts were dismissed with prejudice; they cannot be brought again. Plaintiff Illinois National had alleged one count of negligence and one of strict liability against Enstrom, but Judge Flanagan agreed with Chuhak associate Riley that the economic loss doctrine applied and bars the case.

As in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank (1982), the economic loss doctrine bars recovery in tort cases where the loss is financial rather than related to injury. Flanagan further agreed that Illinois National, subrogated to the owner’s property damage claim, does not qualify for allowable exceptions to the doctrine.

The third and fourth counts—respectively, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty—were dismissed without prejudice. Flanagan ruled these claims, involving elastomeric dampers that the owner had installed in the helicopter three months prior to the incident, to be insufficiently pled.

The judge agreed with the defense that, as in Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Atlas Chemical (2007), privity—a contractual relationship—is required between two parties in litigation in order for one to recover economic damages from the other for breach of implied warranty. Flanagan also cited the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Illinois procedure to provide required details and a copy of the warranty plaintiff claimed as another reason for dismissal.