Silas Holdings has filed a lawsuit against Boca Aircraft Maintenance and Boca Aircraft Modifications (“BAM”) in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida Case No.: 2019-014281-CA-01. In a seven count, 152-page Complaint, Silas Holdings LLC, as the owner of a Dassault-Breguet Falcon 50 aircraft, along with two other plaintiffs, have sued BAM for damages arising from negligence, fraud in the performance, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotion distress.
“The allegations based on the investigation conducted are extremely disturbing,” said Richard L. Richards, Esq. and Principal of the Richards Legal Group. Richards, who is Board Certified in Aviation Law, is the attorney for Silas Holdings LLC and the counsel of record in the case.
As set forth in the Complaint, the Falcon 50 aircraft was inducted into BAM in August of 2018 for required 1-C, 2-C, and 4-C inspections and a landing gear overhaul, both as mandated by the manufacturer and the Federal Aviation Administration. The Complaint alleges that two months after the aircraft’s December 1, 2018 departure from BAM, upon a landing it was discovered that BAM failed to properly connect and install hardware on flap screw jacks on all three “L/H positions” resulting in the jamming of the “L/H inboard flap” of the Falcon 50 Aircraft. It is asserted that this failure rendered the Falcon 50 aircraft unsafe and exposed the aircraft and those aboard to an enormous catastrophic risk. The lawsuit states that at least nineteen other instances of BAM failures were discovered ranging from a rudder out of adjustment to a wrench found in R/H MLG wheel well. As such, the Complaint concludes that BAM breached its duty to ensure that the required maintenance was performed in a proper and safe manner.
The lawsuit goes on to state that it was later discovered that BAM did not have mechanics experienced with Falcon 50 aircraft performing the inspections and overhaul in spite of BAM’s representations to the contrary. Moreover, it is alleged that instead of charging between $2,700.00 and $6,700.00 for a substitute avionics part core, BAM billed an unconscionable $156,034.00 after concealing that BAM personnel actually damaged the core in the first place.
The entire lawsuit complaint can be found here.