## Facts

- The Detroit Diesel Allison Division of General Motors Corporation (“Allison”) designed and manufactured the Allison 250‑C18 gas‑turbine helicopter engine and allegedly oversaw aspects of its installation.
- Multiple products-liability actions were filed in several federal district courts after alleged in‑flight engine failures that resulted in crashes or emergency landings.
- Twelve actions pending in seven districts (the “Schedule A” actions) were brought by corporate owners or operators of commercial helicopters using the Allison 250‑C18 engine.
- The Schedule A plaintiffs were represented by the same lead counsel and alleged defects in the design, manufacture, and installation of the engine.
- In the Schedule A actions, claimed damages included (1) damage to helicopters and business losses tied to crashes or emergency landings allegedly caused by premature engine failures or malfunctions, and (2) business losses from helicopter downtime required for engine repairs or modifications specified by the Federal Aviation Agency and Allison.
- A minority of actions also named additional defendants, including authorized overhaul/repair facilities and helicopter manufacturers (the “minority defendants”).
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order to show cause regarding eight additional, apparently related actions (the “Schedule B” actions), which included a mix of corporate business-damage claims and individual personal-injury or wrongful-death claims.
- The moving parties argued that common factual questions across the cases centered on the airworthiness of the Allison 250‑C18 engine, including its design, development, manufacture, and installation, and the extent of Allison’s role in installation and authorized overhaul/repair work.
- Opposing parties argued that each accident involved distinct operating conditions and localized proof, making much discovery case-specific.

## Issues

1. Whether the Schedule A actions, and some or all of the Schedule B actions, shared common questions of fact such that transfer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
2. Whether centralization would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct of the actions, despite accident-specific issues and locally focused discovery.
3. If transfer was warranted, which district should be selected as the transferee forum, and whether any actions should be excluded based on their posture or limited overlap.

## Decision

- The Panel ordered transfer of all Schedule A actions and some Schedule B actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- The Panel declined to transfer the remaining Schedule B actions where the overlap was not sufficient to justify inclusion in the coordinated proceedings.
- The Panel selected the Western District of Oklahoma as the transferee district.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, actions pending in different districts may be transferred to one district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings when they share one or more common questions of fact and transfer would serve party and witness convenience and further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- The existence of accident-specific facts (e.g., varying environments, operating conditions, and damages) does not bar § 1407 transfer when there is a substantial shared factual core—such as recurring questions about a single product’s design, manufacture, installation practices, and alleged defects.
- Centralization is appropriate where coordinated discovery will likely avoid repetitive requests and depositions directed to common actors (here, Allison and, in some cases, entities involved in installation and authorized overhaul/repair).
- The Panel may transfer some, but not all, related actions, based on the degree of factual overlap and the expected value of coordinated pretrial management.

## Conclusion

The JPML centralized the principal group of helicopter-engine products-liability actions because the cases shared major factual questions about the alleged defects and airworthiness of the Allison 250‑C18 engine and Allison’s role in design, manufacture, and installation-related practices; coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Western District of Oklahoma were expected to reduce repetitive discovery and improve pretrial administration, while less-overlapping cases were left outside the MDL.


In re Aviation Products Liability Litigation, 347 F. Supp. 1401 (1972)