Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the government’s denial-of-summary-judgment argument because the issue of whether a covenant not to sue violated public policy was purely legal. Applying Nebraska law, the court concluded that the covenant was not clearly and unmistakably repugnant to public policy, but it remanded for the district court to determine whether the covenant applied to Ronald Panting while acting as an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Eighth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment when the government did not renew its purely legal argument at trial or in a post-trial motion.
- Whether, under Nebraska law, the covenant not to sue was clearly and unmistakably contrary to public policy because of bargaining-power disparity or because the Aero Club provided a public or essential service.
- Whether the covenant's plain language applied to Ronald's activities while acting as an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner.
Holdings
- A court of appeals may review a denial of summary judgment presenting a purely legal issue even when the argument was not renewed at trial or in a post-trial motion.
- The covenant was not clearly and unmistakably repugnant to Nebraska public policy. Ronald had a reasonable opportunity to understand the covenant and alternatives to using Aero Club planes, and the Aero Club provided recreational aircraft-rental services rather than a public or essential service.
- The issue whether the covenant applied to Ronald while acting as an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner had to be considered by the district court in the first instance.
Key quotations
“if a motion for summary judgment raises purely legal issues, it is reviewable on appeal even if the arguments were not revisited during trial.” (at 3)
“the power of courts to invalidate contracts for being in contravention of public policy is a very delicate and undefined power which should be exercised only in cases free from doubt.” (at 4)
“The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (at 8)
Factual background
Ronald B. Panting was an independent contractor and FAA Designated Pilot Examiner who conducted Checkrides in planes rented from the government-affiliated LeMay Aero Club. Five days before a July 24, 2016 Checkride, he signed a covenant not to sue the United States for injuries or death resulting from participation in Aero Club activities, including injuries caused by government negligence. The aircraft crashed during the Checkride, killing Ronald and the applicant, Michael Trubilla; Panting alleged that negligent government maintenance caused the crash.
Procedural history
Lynne Panting sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligent maintenance of an Aero Club aircraft that crashed during an FAA Checkride and killed Ronald Panting and Michael Trubilla. The district court denied the government's summary-judgment motion, concluding that Ronald's covenant not to sue was void as against public policy, and later entered judgment for Panting after a bench trial. The Eighth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the purely legal summary-judgment ruling, reversed that ruling, and remanded for the district court to decide whether the covenant covered Ronald's DPE activities.
Remand instructions
The district court must consider whether the covenant not to sue applied to Ronald in his capacity as an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner and conduct any other proceedings it deems appropriate.