Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

NICOLE VANDORN, as Surviving Spouse and Personal
Representative for the Estate of Lt. J WESLEY VAN
DORN, USN, deceased;

Docket No.
COMPLAINT

AMY SNYDER, as Surviving Spouse and Personal
Representative for the Estate of Lt. SEAN
CHRISTOPHER SNYDER, USN, deceased;
CHEYENNE COLLINS, as Surviving Spouse and
Personal Representative for the estate of Petty Officer 3rd
Class BRIAN ANDREW COLLINS, USN, deceased; and
Petty Officer 2nd Class DYLAN MORGAN BOONE,
USN,

JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED

December 28, 2015

Plaintiffs,
-againstSIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; SIKORSKY
SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. dba SIKORSKY
AEROSPACE SERVICES; HELICOPTER SUPPORT,
INC.; DERCO AEROSPACE, INC.; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORPORATION;
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GE AVIATION,
LLC;
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; THE DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY; and
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs by and through their attomeys, KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP,
respectfully allege:

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 22

PLAINTIFFS

1.

On January 8, 2014, Lt. J WESLEY VANDORN, USN, deceased (hereinafter

"VAN DORN") was on active duty in the United States Navy and the pilot on board a
Sikorsky MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter, Bureau Number (BUNO) 163070, call sign
Vulcan 543 (hereinafter "subject aircraft"), which crashed off the coast of Virginia Beach,
Virginia. VANDORN was killed as a result of the crash ofthe subject aircraft.
2.

Plaintiff NICOLE VAN DORN is the duly appointed personal representative

for the Estate of Lt. J Wesley Van Dom, and she brings this action in her individual capacity
as the surviving spouse of VAN DORN, in her representative capacity for the Estate of Lt. J
Wesley Van Dom, and for the decedent' s two natural infant children, surviving parents,
siblings, and next of kin. NICOLE VAN DORN was appointed personal representative for
the Estate of Lt. J Wesley Van Dom in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on December 17, 2015.
3.

At the time ofhis death, VANDORN was a citizen ofVirginia.

4.

On January 8, 2014, Lt. SEAN CHRISTOPHER SNYDER, USN, deceased

(hereinafter "SNYDER") was on active duty in the United States Navy and was the co-pilot
on board the subject aircraft. SNYDER was killed as a result of the crash of the subject
aircraft.
5.

Plaintiff AMY SNYDER is the duly appointed personal representative for the

Estate of Sean Christopher Snyder, and she brings this action in her individual capacity as the
surviving spouse of SNYDER, in her representative capacity for the Estate of Lt. Sean
Christopher Snyder, and for the decedent' s four natural infant children, surviving parents,
siblings, and next of kin. AMY SNYDER was appointed as personal representative for the
Estate of Lt. Sean Christopher Snyder in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on December 17, 2015 .

2

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 22

6.

At the time of his death, SNYDER was a citizen of Virginia.

7.

On January 8, 2014, Petty Officer 3rd Class BRIAN ANDREW COLLINS,

USN, deceased (hereinafter "COLLINS") was on active duty in the United States Navy and
was an aircrewman on board the subject aircraft. COLLINS was killed as a result of the
crash ofthe subject aircraft.
8.

Plaintiff CHEYENNE COLLINS is the duly appointed personal representative

for the Estate of Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Andrew Collins, and she brings this action in
her individual capacity as the surviving spouse of COLLINS, in her representative capacity
for the Estate of Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Andrew Collins, and for the decedent' s
surviving parents, siblings, and next of kin.

CHEYENNE COLLINS was appointed as

personal representative for the Estate of Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Andrew Collins in
Norfolk, Virginia, on December 16, 2015.
9.

At the time of his death, COLLINS was a citizen of Virginia.

10. On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff Petty Officer 2nd Class DYLAN MORGAN
BOONE, USN, (hereinafter "BOONE") was on active duty in the United States Navy and
was an aircrewman on board the subject aircraft. BOONE was seriously and permanently
injured as a result of the crash of the subject aircraft.
11. BOONE is a citizen of Colorado.

DEFENDANTS
12. At

all

relevant

times

herein,

Defendant

SIKORSKY

AIRCRAFT

CORPORATION (hereinafter "SIKORSKY") was and is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place ofbusiness in Stratford, Connecticut.

3

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 4 of 22

13. At all relevant times herein, Defendant SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES,
INC. (dba Sikorsky Aerospace Services) (hereinafter "SIKORSKY AEROSPACE")

was

and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Stratford, Connecticut.
SIKORSKY AEROSPACE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SIKORSKY.
I 4. At all relevant times herein, Defendant HELICOPTER SUPPORT, INC.
(hereinafter "HSI") was and is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business
in Trumbull, Connecticut. HSI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SIKORSKY.
I 5. At all relevant times herein, Defendant DERCO AEROSPACE, INC.
(hereinafter "DERCO") was and is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of
business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and, at all relevant times herein was and is continually
and systematically doing business in the state of Connecticut. DERCO is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of SIKORSKY.
16. At all relevant times herein, Defendant UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION (hereinafter "UTC"), was and is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place ofbusiness in Farmington, Connecticut, and owned all Sikorsky entities.
I 7. At

all

relevant

times

herein,

Defendant

LOCKHEED

MARTIN

CORPORATION (hereinafter "LOCKHEED") was and is a Maryland corporation with its
principal place ofbusiness in Bethesda, Maryland, and, at all relevant times herein was and is
continually and systematically doing business in the state of Connecticut, and owned all
Sikorsky entities.
18. LOCKHEED acquired SIKORSKY, SIKORSKY AEROSPACE, HSI, and
DERCO from UTC in 2015. SIKORSKY, SIKORSKY AEROSPACE, HSI, DERCO, UTC,
and LOCKHEED will hereinafter be referred to as "SIKORSKY DEFENDANTS. "

4

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 5 of 22

19. At all times herein mentioned, SIKORSKY DEFENDANTS, and each of
them, and their aggregates, associates, and partners, and each of them, were the agents,
servants, employers, assignees, pennissive users, successors in interest, or joint venturers of
each other, and were acting within the time, purpose, or scope of such agency or employment
or permission, and all acts or omissions alleged herein of each such Defendant were
authorized, adopted, approved, or ratified by each of the other Defendants.
20. At all times relevant herein, SIKORSKY DEFENDANTS were and are in the
business of designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, assembling, instructing,
maintaining, training, writing manuals regarding, advertising, marketing, warranting, selling,
leasing, distributing, and placing into the stream of commerce the MH-53E line of aircraft,
including the subject aircraft and its component parts, subject engines, wires and wiring
insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners , and ties
21 . At all relevant times herein, Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
(hereinafter "GE") was and is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in
Fairfield, Connecticut.
22. At all relevant times herein, Defendant GE AVIATION, LLC (hereinafter "GE
AVIATION") was and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Cincinnati, Ohio, and was and is engaging in continuous and systematic contacts with the
State of Connecticut.
23 . At all relevant times, GE AVIATION, LLC was and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of GE.

GE AVIATION and GE will hereinafter be referred to as "GE

DEFENDANTS."

5

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 6 of 22

24. At all times herein mentioned, GE DEFENDANTS, and each of them, and
their aggregates, associates, and partners, and each of them, were the agents, servants,
employers, assignees, permissive users, successors in interest or joint venturers of each other,
and were acting within the time, purpose, or scope of such agency or employment or
permission, and all acts or omissions alleged herein of each such Defendant were authorized,
adopted, approved, or ratified by each of the other Defendants.
25 . At all times relevant herein, GE DEFENDANTS were and are in the business
of designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, assembling, instructing, maintaining,
training, writing manuals regarding, advertising, marketing, warranting, selling, leasing,
distributing and placing into the stream of commerce the MH-53E line of aircraft, including
the subject aircraft and its component parts, subject engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel
lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties
26. At all relevant times herein, Defendant E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS &
COMPANY (hereinafter " DU PONT") was and is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Wilmington, Delaware, and was and is engaging in continuous and
systematic contacts with the State of Connecticut.
27. At all relevant times herein, Defendant DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
(hereinafter "DOW") was and is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business
in Midland, Michigan, and was and is engaging in continuous and systematic contacts with
the State of Connecticut.
28 . As of the filing of this complaint, DU PONT and DOW are engaged in a
corporate merger.

DU PONT and DOW will hereinafter be referred to as "DUPONT-

DOW."

6

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 7 of 22

29. At all times herein mentioned, DUPONT-DOW, and each of them, and their
aggregates, associates, and partners, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employers,
assignees, permissive users, successors in interest or joint venturers of each other, and were
acting within the time, purpose, or scope of such agency or employment or pennission, and
ali acts or omissions alleged herein of each such Defendant were authorized, adopted,
approved, or ratified by each of the other Defendants.
30. At ali times relevant herein, DUPONT-DOW were and are in the business of
designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, assembling, instructing, maintaining, training,
writing manuals regarding, advertising, marketing, warranting, seiling, leasing, distributing
and placing into the stream of commerce the MH-53E line of aircraft, including the subject
aircraft and its component parts, subject engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel
transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties.
31 . At ali relevant times herein, L-3 Communications Corporation (hereinafter "L3") was and is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in New York, and
was and is engaging in continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Connecticut.
32. At ali times relevant herein, L-3 was and is in the business of designing,
manufacturing, testing, inspecting, assembling, instructing, maintaining, training, writing
manuals regarding, advertising, marketing, warranting, selling, leasing, distributing and
placing into the stream of commerce the MH-53E line of aircraft, including the subject
aircraft and its component parts, subject engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel
transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 8 of 22

33. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The

adverse parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Jurisdiction is also based on maritime

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 because the injuries alleged herein occurred on navigable
waters off the coast of Virginia.
34. Venue is proper in Connecticut, as many of the negligent and culpable acts
giving rise to PLAINTIFFS ' claim, including, but not limited to, the design, manufacture,
distribution, and maintenance of the subject aircraft and its component parts, subject engines,
wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties took place in
Connecticut.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

35. SIKORSKY DEFENDANTS, GE DEFENDANTS, DUPONT-DOW, and L-3
will hereinafter be referred to as DEFENDANTS.
36. The Sikorsky MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter and its component parts, subject
engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners , and ties are
designed, manufactured, tested, inspected, assembled, maintained, marketed, warranted, sold,
leased, and/or distributed by DEFENDANTS .
37. The U.S. Navy ' s MH-53E fleet first became operational in 1986. The fleet
conducts mine sweeping operations and logistical support, among other services.
38. Helicopter Mine Countenneasures Squadron Fourteen also known as
Helmineron Fourteen (hereinafter "HM-14"), is an airborne mine countenneasures squadron
in the U.S. Navy. HM-14 is based in Norfolk, Virginia. HM-14 operates approximately
twelve MH-53E aircraft.

8

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 9 of 22

39. On November 26, 1990, HM-14 took delivery of the subject aircraft, a
Sikorsky MH-53E Sea Dragon, Bureau Number (BUNO) 163070, call sign Vulcan 543 .
40. On January 8, 2014, the subject aircraft was operated by HM-14 for a training
flight (hereinafter "the subject flight") involving ocean minesweeping and aircraft ramp
operator training.
41. VAN DORN was the pilot for the subject flight and SNYDER was the copilot. BOONE, COLLINS, and a third Naval serviceman who is not a party to this suit, were
aircrewman. The subject flight took place off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia.
42. The subject aircraft took off from Naval Station Norfolk at approximately 8:11
AM. The subject aircraft began training operations off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia
at approximately 8:40 AM. The training involved towing a minesweeping device through
the water at approximately 100 feet of altitude.
43. At approximately 10:25 AM, an explosion occurred near the port wall aft of
the gunner' s window, i.e. on the left side of the aircraft to the rear of the gunner' s window.
44. According

to

post-accident

accounts,

the

explosion

resembled

a

"flamethrower" and a "fireball ," which came from the flight refuel filter and smokerack.
45. Fire and black smoke that smelled like fuel rapidly filled the aircraft. The
crewmen tried unsuccessfully to extinguish the fire.
46. Blinded by the thick smoke, VAN DORN and SNYDER had no visual
reference to the horizon and could not reference their flight instruments. As a result, the
pilots lost spatial awareness and the aircraft violently struck the water and began to sink.
47. BOONE, who was severely and pennanently injured in the crash, was able to
swim to the surface of the water. VAN DORN was visible on the surface thirty to forty

9

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 10 of 22

yards away from BOONE and was yelling for help. COLLINS was also on the surface of the
water, floating unconscious and face down.
48. A Navy aircraft pulled COLLINS and VAN DORN out of the water at
approximately 11:15 AM and, because of the severity of their injuries, immediately flew
them to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.
49. BOONE and the third crewman were rescued by another Navy aircraft at
approximately 11 :35 AM.
50. On arrival at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, COLLINS could not be
revived and was pronounced dead at 11 :41 AM.
51. VAN DORN sustained massive internal injuries, an amputated left hand and
right foot, hypothennia, and other severe injuries. VAN DORN was pronounced dead from
cardiac arrest at 4:35 PM.
52. BOONE suffered severe and permanent injuries and ultimately survived. The
third crewman also survived.
53. SNYDER was unable to escape the subject aircraft. Navy divers recovered
SNYDER' s remains from the subject aircraft' s cockpit on January 14, 2014.
54. At the time of the subject flight, the subject aircraft and its component parts,
subject engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties
had recently undergone the first of three life extension maintenance and overhaul phases. As
part of these phases, Kapton wiring in the subject aircraft was to be replaced. At the time of
the subject flight, not all of the Kapton wiring had been removed from the subject aircraft.
55 . The Kapton wiring was designed, manufactured, tested, inspected, assembled,
maintained, marketed, warranted, sold, leased, and/or distributed by DEFENDANTS.

10

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 11 of 22

56. Kapton wiring is defective and unsafe due to its susceptibility to corrosion,
degradation, deterioration, wear, alteration upon contact with water, carbonization upon
exposure to heat, and disintegration. These defects rendered the wiring in the subject aircraft
prone to arcing events, arc tracking, flashover, deflagration, and other unplanned conduction
and energizing events.
57. The life extension maintenance and overhaul phases, as well as maintenance,
inspection, updates, overhauls, and repairs of the subject aircraft and its component parts,
subject engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties
were carried out by DEFENDANTS.
58. Wiring in the aircraft, including but not limited to the Kapton wiring, was
designed, manufactured, tested, inspected, assembled, maintained, marketed, warranted, sold,
leased, and/or distributed by DEFENDANTS.
59. Portions of the wiring in the aircraft, including but not limited to the Kapton
wiring, were bundled together by DEFENDANTS using nylon zip ties.
60. An engineering investigation, conducted in furtherance of the Manual of the
Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN) final report of the crash, revealed two "through-wall "
holes in the subject aircraft' s fuel transfer pressure tube.
61. The fuel transfer pressure tube is an aluminum component of the aircraft' s fuel
transfer system located inside the aircraft. It transfers fuel from storage tanks inside the
aircraft' s sponsons to a location selected by the crew.
62. The first hole was on the front side of the fuel transfer tube and measured .134
inches long and .011 inches wide. The report concluded this rupture was likely caused by a

11

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 12 of 22

nylon zip tie used to bundle the electric wiring in the aircraft, which rubbed against and
chafed the fuel transfer tube.
63. The JAGMAN report concluded a nylon zip tie likely caused the breach for
two reasons. First, rounded contours at each edge of the breach chafe area were consistent
with the contours of a large or medium-sized nylon zip tie. Second, no foreign metal transfer
was found in the chafe damage area.
64. Safe operation, repair, and maintenance of the MH-53E requires a minimum of
two inches between wiring and any flammable liquid, fuel, or oxygen line. In addition, wires
in the vicinity of fuel transfer tubes must be closely clamped and rigidly supported to prevent
contact with ignitable sources. Finally, zip ties should be appropriately fastened to remove
any sharp edges that might increase the risk of chafing of adjacent aircraft components.
65. The second hole in the fuel transfer tube was oval shaped and measured .225
by .110 inches. The second hole was located approximately .25 inches below the first hole,
near the front side of the fuel transfer tube. The perimeter around the second hole displayed
shallow chafe damage into the parent material of the tube. Stereoscopic examination of the
second hole revealed it was likely caused by electrical arcing/shorting in an area of chafing
damage, which was produced by an active conductor tack welding directly to the surface of
the fuel transfer tube. Stereoscopic examination also revealed a dispersal of carbon around
the perimeter of the hole, consistent with a fuel vapor cloud perimeter.
66. The JAGMAN report concluded that wire bundle chafing caused a breach in
the insulation of an actively conductive wire near the fuel transfer tube, causing electrical
arcing to the fuel transfer tube' s chafed surface and resulting in the ignition of fuel or fuel
vapor.

12

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 13 of 22

67. The resulting explosion caused the onboard fire that directly led to the subject
crash, the deaths of VAN DORN, SNYDER, and COLLINS, and the serious and permanent
injuries suffered by BOONE.

FIRST CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
AND SURVIVAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
WRONGFUL DEATHS OF LT. J WESLEY VANDORN, LT. SEAN CHRISTOPHER
SNYDER, AND PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS BRIAN ANDREW COLLINS.
68 . PLAINTIFFS hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 above.
69. On January 8, 2014, DEFENDANTS owed PLAINTIFFS a duty to exercise
reasonable care in the study, analyses, design, manufacture, assembly, inspection, testing,
distribution, sale, servicing, maintenance, overhaul, and/or repair of the subject aircraft and
its component parts, including the subject engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel
lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties related thereto and the duty to use reasonable care
in the development, production and distribution of instructions for the safe use of the subject
aircraft, including, but not limited to, operation, training, and maintenance manuals in
accordance with the airworthiness requirements, standards of performance in the industry,
and standards promulgated by the United States Government, and to do so in a reasonable
and prudent matmer so as not to allow the subject aircraft and its component parts and
systems, including electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners,
a11d ties related thereto to be unairworthy, and/or otherwise unsafe so as to pose an
unreasonable risk of injury and death to U.S. Navy and U.S . Marine Corps personnel,
including PLAINTIFFS.
70. Upon infonnation and belief, at all relevant times stated herein, the subject
crash, injuries, death, and resultant damages were proximately caused by the negligence of
DEFENDANTS, by and through their officers, agents, employees, servants and others under
13

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 14 of 22

their employ and control, in that DEFENDANTS breached their aforesaid duties, carelessly
failed to properly design, study, analyze, manufacture, assemble, inspect, service, overhaul,
repair, alter, modify, test, certify, and maintain the subject aircraft and its component parts,
including the subject engines, wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, and
ties related thereto, and failed to adequately detect, correct and warn or caution about
dangerous and unsafe conditions causing the subject aircraft, electrical wires, wire insulation,
and fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes to be unairworthy and/or otherwise unsafe on and prior to
January 8, 2014, and caused or contributed to the crash of the subject aircraft.
71. Specifically, DEFENDANTS were negligent, by act or omission, and breached
their duty of care owed to PLAINTIFFS, in one or more of the following respects, by:
a. Failing to employ the proper safe distance and other safeguards between: (1)
the fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes running from the subject aircraft' s fuel tanks
to the engines; and (2) wire bundles used to transmit electrical currents to
aircraft components and systems;
b.

Failing to properly secure zip ties that were supposed to safely bundle and
stow electrical wires and failing to keep the zip ties from fuel lines/fuel
transfer tubes and other aircraft components containing ignitable substances;

c. Failing to prevent chafing of the fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes and electrical
wires by the zip ties, causing damage and deterioration of the fuel lines/fuel
transfer tubes, and electrical wires; and failing to prevent electrical current,
heat, and electrical arcing to ignitable fuels and/or fuel vapors from the
compromised and damaged fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes and electrical wires,
causing an explosion, fire, and blinding smoke.

14

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 15 of 22

d. Failing to adequately warn users, operators, and maintainers of the subject
aircraft of the chafing risks posed by the use of nylon zip ties and/or
improperly secured nylon zip ties.
e. Failing to adequately warn users, operators, and maintainers of the subject
aircraft of the risks posed by close proximity between electric wires and fuel
lines/fuel transfer tubes.

f.

Manufacturing, distributing, failing to remove, and installing Kapton wiring in
the subject aircraft, which was defective and unsafe due to its susceptibility to
corrosion, degradation, deterioration, wear, alteration upon contact with water,
carbonization upon exposure to heat, and disintegration, and which defects
rendered the wiring in the aircraft prone to arcing events, arc tracking,
flashover, deflagration, and other unplanned conduction and energizing
events.

g. Manufacturing, distributing, and installing fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes that
were defective and unsafe due to their susceptibility to corrosion, degradation,
deterioration, wear, and alteration
72. On January 8, 2014, the subject aircraft and its component parts, including the
subject engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and
ties related thereto were unreasonably dangerous and unsafe by reason of DEFENDANTS'
defective design, manufacture, assembly, testing, inspection, service, distribution, and sale of
the subject aircraft and its component parts, inadequate and unsafe instructions, manuals,
cautions, and warnings.

15

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 16 of 22

73. At all times material hereto and prior to January 8, 2014, DEFENDANTS had
an ongoing and continuing duty to wam and were required by contract, specification,
standard and/or otherwise, to make certain that any defects in the component and
replacement parts for the aircraft, including, but not limited to, the subject aircraft' s engines,
electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties, were
corrected prior to causing injury or death.
74. Upon infonnation and belief, DEFENDANTS breached their post-sale duty to
adequately wam of and to correct the defective and dangerous conditions in the component
and replacement parts for the subject aircraft, including, but not limited to, the subject
aircraft' s engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners,
and ties.
75. As a proximate cause of the defective conditions of the component and
replacement parts for the subject aircraft, including but not limited to the subject aircraft' s
engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties,
inadequate and defective wamings, and the failure to wam of and/or correct these defects, as
alleged herein, and as a direct result of the negligent acts and omissions of DEFENDANTS,
the subject aircraft crashed and VAN DORN, SNYDER, and COLLINS suffered fatal
mJunes.
76. On January 8, 2014, the subject aircraft and its component parts, including the
subject engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and
ties related thereto were being operated and used for the purpose and in the manner for which
they were designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, inspected, serviced, distributed, sold

16

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 17 of 22

and intended to be used, and in a manner foreseeable to defendants and for which adequate
and safe instructions, manuals, cautions, and wamings were required to be issued.
77. The defects in the design, manufacture, assembly, instructions, manuals and
wamings, testing, inspection, service, distribution and sale of the subject aircraft and its
component parts, including the subject engmes, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel
lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties related thereto caused the subject aircraft to crash
and caused VANDORN, SNYDER, and COLLINS to suffer serious and fatal injuries.
78. In addition, as shown by the sudden malfunction on board the subject aircraft,
there were catastrophic defects in the subject aircraft and its component parts, including the
subject engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and
ties. Said defects existed at the time the subject aircraft left DEFENDANTS ' control and
were not solely the result of causes other than a product defect existing at the time of
DEFENDANTS ' manufacture, distribution, maintenance, and repair of the subject aircraft
and its engines, electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and
ties.
79. Prior to January 8, 2014, defendants expressly and/or implicitly warranted and
represented that the subject aircraft, the subject engines, and their component parts, including
wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties related thereto
were airworthy, of merchantable quality, fit and safe for the purposes for which they were
designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, serviced, distributed, sold, intended, used, and
that the instructions, manuals, cautions, and wamings that had been issued were adequate and
safe, and further that the subject aircraft and its component parts, including the subject

17

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 18 of 22

engmes, and their component parts, including wires and wiring insulation, fuel lines/fuel
transfer tubes, fasteners , and ties related thereto were free from defects.
80. DEFENDANTS breached said express and implied warranties m that on
January 8, 2014, the subject aircraft and its component parts, including the subject engines,
electrical wires, wire insulation, fuel lines/fuel transfer tubes, fasteners, and ties related
thereto were not airworthy, of merchantable quality, fit and safe for the purposes for which
they were designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, serviced, distributed, sold, intended,
and used, and the instructions, manuals, and warnings which had been issued were not
adequate and safe, but were defective and thereby caused the subject crash and caused VAN
DORN, SNYDER, and COLLINS to suffer serious and fatal injuries.
81. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS ' negligence, failure to warn,
unreasonably dangerous and defective products, and breach of warranties, and the death of
VAN DORN as aforesaid, the Estate of Lt. J Wesley Van Dorn, the decedent' s wife, two
natural infant children, and all surviving parents, siblings, and next of kin, and each of them,
have sustained damages, including, but not limited to, the loss of earnings of the decedent,
loss of services, loss of inheritance, loss of prospective accumulations, mental anguish,
emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital
care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, and education, and are entitled to be
compensated therefor.
82. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS ' negligence, failure to warn,
unreasonably dangerous and defective products, Decedent VAN DORN sustained serious
personal injuries and other medical conditions, which resulted in prolonged severe and

18

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 19 of 22

excruciating conscious pain, suffering and fear of impending death from the moment of the
explosion and resulting smoke and fire up to the moment of decedent's wrongful death.
83. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS' negligence, failure to warn,
unreasonably dangerous and defective products, and breach of warranties, and the death of
SNYDER as aforesaid, the Estate of Lt. Sean Christopher Snyder, the decedent' s wife, four
natural infant children, and all surviving parents, siblings, and next of kin, and each of them,
have sustained damages, including, but not limited to, the loss of earnings of the decedent,
loss of services, loss of inheritance, loss of prospective accumulations, mental anguish,
emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital
care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, and education, and are entitled to be
compensated therefor.
84. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS ' negligence, failure to warn,
unreasonably dangerous and defective products, and breach of warranties, SNYDER
sustained serious personal injuries and other medical conditions, which resulted in prolonged
severe and excruciating conscious pain, suffering and fear of impending death from the
moment of the explosion and resulting smoke and fire up to the moment of decedent's
wrongful death.
85. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS ' negligence, failure to warn,
unreasonably dangerous and defective products, breach of warranties, and the deaths of
COLLINS as aforesaid, the Estate of Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Andrew Collins, the
decedent's wife, and all surviving parents, siblings, and next of kin, and each of them, have
sustained damages, including, but not limited to, the loss of earnings of the decedent, loss of
services, loss of inheritance, loss of prospective accumulations, mental anguish, emotional

19

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 20 of 22

pam and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, marital care,
attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, and education and are entitled to be
compensated therefor.
86. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS ' negligence, failure to warn,
unreasonably dangerous and defective products, and breach of warranties, Decedent
COLLINS sustained serious personal injuries and other medical conditions, which resulted in
prolonged severe and excruciating conscious pain, suffering and fear of impending death
from the moment of the explosion and resulting smoke and fire up to the moment of
decedent's wrongful death.
87. VAN DORN, SNYDER, and COLLINS allege that DEFENDANTS should be
punished by an award of exemplary damages over and above compensatory damages,
sufficient to deter DEFENDANTS and others similarly situated from committing the acts
and/or omissions detailed herein.
88 . By reason of the foregoing, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to recover all legally
available damages including, but not limited to, damages for: sorrow, mental anguish and
solace, pre-death pain and suffering, loss of income, services, protection, care, and assistance
of the deceased, medical expenses, funeral expenses, and punitive damages, in amounts
according to proof and within the jurisdiction of this court.

SECOND CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES OF PETTY
OFFICER 2ND CLASS DYLAN MORGAN BOONE
89. Plaintiff BOONE hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 88
above.

20

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 21 of 22

90. As a proximate cause of DEFENDANTS ' aforesaid negligence, failure to
warn, unreasonably dangerous and defective products, and breach of warranties, BOONE has
sustained serious and pennanent personal injuries.
91. As a result of said injuries, BOONE has lost earnings and earnings capacity.
Plaintiff will pray leave of court to be compensated for both past and future claimed lost
earnings and earnings capacity at the time of trial.
92 . BOONE has and will also continue to suffer severe and excruciating physical
pam and suffering, distressing mental anguish, fear of impending death, and emotional
distress as a result of said injuries. In the treatment of the aforesaid injuries, BOONE was
compelled to and did employ the services of physicians, surgeons, and other medical
personnel, and incurred expenses relative to the care and treatment of said injuries. BOONE
is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that he will be compelled to seek further
treatment in the future for care and treatment of said injuries and to incur further expenses for
the same. BOONE will pray leave of court to receive compensation for both past and future
claimed medical and related expenses at the time of trial.
93. BOONE alleges that DEFENDANTS should be punished by an award of
exemplary damages over and

above compensatory damages, sufficient to

deter

DEFENDANTS and others similarly situated from committing the acts and/or omissions
detailed herein.
94. By reason of the foregoing, BOONE is entitled to recover the aforesaid
damages and any and all other available damages under applicable law from defendants in
amounts according to proof and within the jurisdiction of this court.

21

 Case 3:15-cv-01877-AWT Document 1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 22 of 22

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS respectfully request that judgment be entered on
their behalf for compensatory damages against each of DEFENDANTS as set forth above, as
well as punitive/exemplary damages over and above compensatory damages against each of
DEFENDANTS, together with an award of pre and post judgment interest, costs, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury.

Dated: December 28, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
KREINDf ER & KREINDLER LLP

/ /
By:

//1..-

~ ~ .?//'

tJ
r

(( {/',

1 l)ndrew J Malo/ ey (CT 1 5639)

V Francis G. Fleming
750 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Tel.: (212) 687-8181
Fax: (212) 972-9432
Email: amaloney@kreindler.com
Email: ffleming@kreindler.com
Attorneys for Plaint([[

22