Issue

Interlocutory order—denying motion for reconsideration—partial summary judgment—rejecting statute of repose defense—substantial right affected

Summary

In a products liability action arising from a fatal plane crash, where the aircraft's engine manufacturer (defendant) argued that all of plaintiffs' claims were barred by the eighteen-year statute of repose under the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), but where the trial court denied summary judgment to defendant with respect to plaintiffs' claim for negligent failure to warn, the Court of Appeals' order dismissing defendant's appeal from the trial court's subsequent interlocutory order–denying defendant's motion to reconsider the partial summary judgment ruling–was reversed because the Court of Appeals had incorrectly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over defendant's appeal. Firstly, defendant had timely appealed from the correct order. Secondly, plaintiffs' contention that interlocutory orders denying reconsideration are never immediately appealable was meritless, especially where the order at issue substantially altered the court's earlier reasoning for granting partial summary judgment. Finally, unlike statutes of limitations, which are purely procedural and only provide immunity from civil liability, statutes of repose provide immunity from suit–a substantial right that is lost if a case proceeds to trial; therefore, appellate jurisdiction was proper where the order affected defendant's substantial right to immunity from suit under GARA's statute of repose.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →