## Facts

- Aircraft owner Anthony J. Fant hired Champion Aviation, Inc. to remove, rebuild, and reinstall his airplane engine and to perform the annual inspection after Champion solicited his business.
- Fant believed a particular, highly qualified mechanic and authorized inspector (Kevin Smith) would perform and inspect the work.
- Smith resigned after a compensation dispute; although he offered to finish the work and Champion’s vice president recommended accepting, Champion’s officers rejected that option for financial reasons.
- Champion assigned Dan Boman, an airframe and power plant mechanic who had never led an engine installation and had not worked on Fant’s aircraft type.
- During reinstallation, the propeller was improperly attached due to failure to properly torque bolts; in flight, all but one bolt sheared, forcing an emergency landing and causing substantial aircraft damage.
- Fant alleged Champion did not disclose the substitution of Boman for Smith or Boman’s lack of experience, despite knowing Fant relied on Champion’s superior expertise.
- Fant sued for negligence, wantonness, fraud (including suppression and misrepresentation variants), and breach of contract.
- The jury returned a general verdict for Fant: $51,011.79 compensatory damages and $100,000 punitive damages.
- The trial court denied Champion’s motion for JNOV but granted a new trial, stating it erred by charging the jury on all requested fraud instructions.
- Fant appealed the new-trial order; Champion cross-appealed the denial of JNOV.

## Issues

1. Whether Fant presented substantial evidence to submit at least one fraud theory—particularly fraudulent suppression—to the jury.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial on the stated ground that it erred in giving all fraud charges, despite at least one properly submitted fraud theory.
3. Whether Champion was entitled to JNOV on the contract claim based on an asserted lack of consideration or nonpayment before the crash.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the evidence was sufficient to submit fraudulent suppression to the jury.
- The Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on a blanket determination that all fraud charges were erroneous when at least one fraud theory was supported by substantial evidence and could sustain the general verdict.
- The Court affirmed the denial of Champion’s JNOV motion as to fraud (including punitive damages) and breach of contract.
- The Court reversed in part the grant of a new trial and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, restoring the jury verdict to the extent it was supported by the properly submitted fraud theory.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but discretion is exceeded when a new trial is granted on an asserted instructional error that does not invalidate a verdict sustainable on at least one properly instructed, evidentially supported theory.
- Fraudulent suppression requires (a) suppression of a material fact, (b) a duty to disclose arising from the parties’ relationship or the circumstances, (c) inducement to act or refrain from acting, and (d) resulting damage.
- In transactions involving superior technical knowledge and reliance—especially safety-critical services—a duty to disclose may arise regarding material facts such as who will perform the work and their qualifications.
- Punitive damages may be sustained where the evidence permits a finding of wantonness or reckless disregard for safety connected to the wrongful conduct supporting liability.
- A service contract may be proved by the parties’ agreement and conduct; disputes about timing of payment generally present factual issues and do not, by themselves, negate contract formation for purposes of JNOV.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court held that substantial evidence supported a fraudulent-suppression theory and related punitive damages arising from nondisclosure of a material change in personnel and qualifications for aircraft engine work; because that theory could sustain the general verdict, the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on alleged fraud-instruction error, and Champion was not entitled to JNOV on fraud or contract.


Fant v. Champion Aviation, Inc., 689 So. 2d 32 (Ala. 1997)