Bell manufactured the helicopter in 1997 and delivered it to its first purchaser that year, and it eventually went to Westwind Helicopters, which used it to carry workers to offshore platforms.¹ On February 27, 2017, pilot Matthew Kawamura found that the left-side engine cowling, original to the aircraft, had come loose with damaged fasteners, Westwind told him to "chance it coming in for repairs" and fly alone, the cowling allegedly detached, struck the tail rotor and the helicopter crashed, killing him.² His family sued Bell and Westwind in October 2017, and in February 2024 plaintiffs' expert reports first advanced a theory that the flight manual's preflight checklist, which told pilots to confirm the engine cowling was "Secured," should also have warned against flying with it unsecured.³ Between 2002 and 2016 Bell made fifteen sets of revisions to the manual, including four to the preflight-check subsection, none of which touched the cowling instruction, and no version ever included the warning.⁴

Bell moved for summary judgment under the General Aviation Revitalization Act's (GARA) 18-year statute of repose, the plaintiffs responded that the manual revisions restarted the period under the rolling provision, and the county court at law denied the motion without explanation.¹ The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus without a substantive opinion.² The Supreme Court heard argument on December 3, 2025³ and on April 24, 2026 conditionally granted mandamus.⁴

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus after the Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied relief; argued December 3, 2025; opinion by Chief Justice Blacklock issued April 24, 2026.⁵

• Bell:¹ whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by denying summary judgment under GARA's statute of repose, and whether an appeal is an inadequate remedy because GARA provides that "no civil action . . . may be brought" after the repose period.
• The family:² whether Bell can show a clear abuse of discretion, whether it has an adequate remedy on appeal as with any other denial of summary judgment, and whether equity disfavors relief given its six-and-a-half-year delay in seeking dismissal.

Mandamus is a discretionary writ whose availability depends in part on whether it is an efficient way to resolve the dispute, and the Court asked whether the denial of summary judgment was a clear error of law and whether Bell lacks an adequate appellate remedy.¹

Whether GARA's repose period restarted.

Bell (Relators): The trial court clearly abused its discretion by failing to enforce GARA's 18-year repose period, which began at delivery in 1997 and did not restart, because no new part alleged to have caused the accident was added and the alleged defect in the manual never changed.¹

The Kawamura family (Real Parties in Interest): The 18-year period restarted under the rolling provision because Bell revised the flight manual's preflight-check subsection several times before the crash, so the "new" subsection, still lacking an adequate warning, is the part alleged to have caused the accident.²

Whether mandamus is available.

Bell (Relators): Appeal is not an adequate remedy for proceeding to trial in violation of GARA.³

The Kawamura family (Real Parties in Interest): As with nearly any denial of summary judgment Bell has an adequate remedy on appeal, GARA's "may be brought" language is used in ordinary statutes of limitation, and equity disfavors relief given Bell's long delay.⁴

Bell argued that mandamus is warranted because a trial in violation of a federal statute that says no civil action may be brought cannot be remedied by appeal, as in this Court's decisions on federal statutes in Academy and Facebook.¹

• Manual as a part. Asked yes or no whether a flight manual is a part under the statute, relators' counsel said yes, but said an updated manual is not a new part. (Oral Argument, 0:04:09; 0:08:45)
• Immunity from suit. Asked why a repose defense is reviewable by mandamus, relators' counsel said a statute of repose provides immunity from suit, not merely from liability. (Oral Argument, 0:16:58; 0:20:44)
• Routine case. The real parties' counsel distinguished Facebook and Academy: this is a tragic but routine wrongful-death products case with one set of plaintiffs and one defendant. (Oral Argument, 0:30:37)
• Six-and-a-half-year delay. Asked how the delay hurt, the real parties' counsel said it did not, but relators claim a right to avoid the litigation process yet participated in it. (Oral Argument, 0:39:34)
• Permissive appeal. Asked if it sought a permissive appeal, relators' counsel said no; it sought mandamus because Academy and Facebook govern, as in those cases. (Oral Argument, 0:43:21)
• Late pleading. Asked about raising the defense after the amendment deadline, relators' counsel said any affirmative defense must be asserted, and Bell pleaded this one immediately. (Oral Argument, 0:48:21)
• Burden on courts. Asked about the burden of allowing mandamus review of repose defenses, the real parties' counsel said moderate, and would not overwhelm the courts of appeals. (Oral Argument, 0:41:11)

None noted

Holding

GARA's 18-year clock restarts only when a "new" part that is "alleged to have caused" the accident is added or replaced, the plaintiffs' revisions to unrelated parts of the manual do not qualify because the alleged defect, the missing cowling warning, never changed, so GARA bars the claim and mandamus relief is available.¹

Reasoning

GARA operates as a statute of repose that bars an action more than 18 years after the manufacturer delivers the aircraft, with a rolling provision that restarts the clock only for a "new" part that "is alleged to have caused" the accident, and the flight manual is accepted here as a "part".² The text requires identifying the specific part that is both new and alleged to have caused the harm, replacing part of a larger system does not replace the whole, and cases such as Caldwell, Crouch and Hiser hold that revisions to unrelated parts of a manual do not restart the period and that a continued omission of a warning is not a new part.³ The cowling instruction is alleged to have caused the accident but is not new, while the revised instructions are new but not alleged to have caused anything.⁴ Mandamus is appropriate because, as in Academy and Facebook, a statute providing that no civil action "may be brought" confers a right to avoid litigation that an appeal after trial cannot remedy.⁵

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus conditionally granted, with the county court at law directed to grant Bell's motion for summary judgment and the writ to issue only if it does not.⁶

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Blacklock

Joined by Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

Mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy, and in an exceptional case the denial of summary judgment may be corrected by mandamus.¹

Chief Justice Blacklock delivered the opinion of the Court, with no separate writings.¹