The Call That Just Came Into Your House
Somewhere in the last 24 hours — the last hour, for some of you — a military casualty assistance officer, a Boeing human-resources manager, a chaplain, or a sheriff’s deputy knocked on the door or called the phone. A B-52H Stratofortress crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base on or about June 15, 2026. All eight people aboard were killed. Among them were military personnel, government civilians, and contractors supporting the Air Force’s radar modernization program. Boeing has confirmed that two of its employees were on the flight.
If you are reading this at 2 a.m. with a phone that has not stopped ringing, this page is for you. Not for the press, not for the historians, not for the armchair analysts on the cable shows. For you — the spouse, the parent, the adult child, the sibling, the partner. The one who is being told things by people whose job is to protect their company, their branch, and their budget, not yours.
Here is what we want you to know in the first three minutes of reading. You likely have a real case. The two Boeing employees’ families almost certainly do, as do the families of any other contractors and government civilians on the flight. The military families’ situation is more complicated — a 75-year-old Supreme Court rule called the Feres doctrine bars active-duty service members and their families from suing the federal government for injuries incident to military service, but contractors and government civilians are not military, and the bar does not reach them. That distinction is the single most important legal fact in your kitchen right now. It is the reason you are reading a page from a plaintiffs’ trial firm and not a government benefits pamphlet. And the clock on your rights — under California law, two years from the date of death — is already running, even though the only wreckage you have seen so far is on a cable news graphic.
This page is built around three jobs, in this order. Protect you before anyone asks you to sign anything. Prove what your case is worth, in the only language that matters to the people on the other side: federal and state law, federal records, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board’s own procedures, and the engineering paper trail. Dominate the topic so that when you finish reading, the next search you would have typed is already answered.
If, after reading this, you decide we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you who is. That is the same advice we give every family who calls 1-888-ATTY-911. The call is free, confidential, and there is no fee unless we win. We serve families in English and Spanish — Hablamos Español — and we are available 24/7 because the calls come in at 2 a.m., not at noon.
The First Thing You Need to Know: Who Can Sue After a Military Aviation Crash
The rule the Air Force and Boeing hope you never learn is called the Feres doctrine, and it is older than the B-52 itself. In Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government is immune from suit by active-duty service members for injuries — including death — that arise incident to military service. That immunity is broad, it is judge-made rather than statutory, and it has been the subject of a quiet campaign for reform for decades.
Here is what Feres does not do. It does not bar claims by defense contractors. It does not bar claims by government civilians. It does not bar third-party product liability claims against Boeing, Rolls-Royce America, or Raytheon. It does not bar a wrongful-death suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the families of contractor and government-civilian decedents.
Why this matters to you, in plain language: if your loved one was a Boeing engineer on that B-52, your legal options are not limited to a workers’ compensation death benefit. You can sue Boeing in tort under narrow circumstances (gross-negligence carve-outs, third-party indemnity), you can sue Rolls-Royce and Raytheon in strict product liability and negligence, and you can sue the United States under the FTCA for the negligent acts of any government employees involved. If your loved one was a government civilian, the FTCA is your primary route against the United States, and the OEMs remain in the case as third-party defendants. If your loved one was active-duty, your civil path is closed by Feres — but you retain federal administrative remedies (Survivor Benefit Plan, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, and the various military casualty programs) that a separate, military-benefits specialist handles.
The reason the Feres distinction is the lead of this page is that the rest of the case follows from it. If Feres barred every family, there would be no case. Because Feres draws the line exactly where the Air Force wants it drawn — at the uniform — the contractor and civilian families on this flight may have the most important aviation product-liability case of the decade.
“The key thing in investigations is you don’t make any assumptions. In the early days, you have to really just keep an open mind and really follow the facts where the facts lead you.” — aviation attorney, comment to Fox News Digital, June 2026, on the early stages of the Edwards B-52 investigation.
The Air Force has not publicly identified a cause. Investigators are focusing on engine failure, controllability, and post-takeoff handling as primary hypotheses. That is exactly the window we work in — the period between a crash and an identified cause, when the evidence is freshest, the witnesses are reachable, and the defendant’s record is at its most candid. The window closes. We move inside it.
Who Is Liable: The Defendant Map for a Military Test-Flight Crash
This is not a single-defendant case. It is a program-level case — the B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program, the radar modernization, the avionics upgrade — and the parties who designed, manufactured, integrated, tested, and approved the modifications all sit on the defendant map. Each has a different relationship to your loved one, and each has a different insurance tower behind it. We walk you through who they are and what they owe.
The United States Government (Limited, and Only for Non-Military Families)
The federal government can be a defendant in two distinct ways here. First, under the Federal Tort Claims Act — 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 — for the negligent or wrongful acts of government employees acting within the scope of their employment. To bring an FTCA claim, you must first present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency on a Standard Form 95 within two years of accrual, and you may not file suit until the agency denies the claim or six months pass without a final decision (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); § 2675(a)). The FTCA recovers wrongful-death economic damages and limited non-economic damages; it does not allow punitive damages. Second, the United States is also the body that runs the Accident Investigation Board and the JAG legal investigation, and it is the holder of the most important evidence in the case — the wreckage, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, the maintenance records, the test mission plan, the risk assessment, the witness statements.
The Feres bar means active-duty families cannot use the FTCA. Contractor and government-civilian families can. The Boeing employees’ families can pursue the FTCA against the United States for any negligent conduct by Air Force test personnel, range control, or maintainers, alongside their product-liability claims against the manufacturers.
Boeing — The Prime Integration Contractor and the Employer
Boeing sits on the defendant map in two roles. As the prime integration contractor for the B-52 modernization program, Boeing had a duty to ensure the modified aircraft was safe for the test flight. If a recently installed component — engine, radar, avionics, software load — caused or contributed to the mishap, Boeing faces design-integration, installation, and/or testing negligence exposure. As the employer of the two confirmed Boeing employees on the flight, Boeing is shielded from a tort suit by the two families to the extent California workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for work-related death. That is the doctrine called the workers’ comp exclusivity rule, and it is the trap Boeing’s claims team will walk your family into within the first week if no one stops them. The release Boeing wants you to sign when it offers a final-pay package and a lump-sum death benefit may contain language that wraps up your third-party claims against Rolls-Royce and Raytheon. We will come back to this in the playbook section, because it is the single most important document you will be asked to sign in the next 30 days.
There are narrow but real paths past the Boeing exclusivity bar. California recognizes a gross negligence carve-out in some workplace contexts, and a dual-capacity doctrine in others — where the employer’s product arm and the employer’s role as installer expose the company to tort liability for the very equipment it manufactured or integrated. A preserved third-party claim against Boeing for design or integration defects can also include Boeing as a third-party defendant in any suit against Rolls-Royce or Raytheon. None of these are automatic. Each requires investigation, expert support, and early filing decisions.
Rolls-Royce America — The F130 Engine Manufacturer
The Rolls-Royce F130 is the centerpiece of the B-52 re-engine program. It is a commercial-derived engine — based on the BR725 commercial platform — being adapted to a 70-year-old airframe. That adaptation is exactly the kind of work that, when rushed, produces post-takeoff loss of power or controllability anomalies. If the engine, the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), the integration with the airframe, the installation, or the qualification testing failed, Rolls-Royce America is exposed on at least three theories:
- Strict product liability — design defect (California’s CACI 1204): a product is defectively designed if the plaintiff proves the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, or the product’s design was a substantial factor in causing harm and the product could have been designed with a reasonable alternative. A brand-new engine failing on a controlled test flight is the textbook consumer-expectation case — ordinary consumers (and juries) do not expect a brand-new engine to fail moments after takeoff.
- Strict product liability — manufacturing defect (CACI 1201): a specific F130 unit departed from its design specifications, and that deviation caused the crash. This theory does not require proof that the design was unreasonable — only that this engine was not built to design.
- Failure to warn (CACI 1205): Rolls-Royce knew or should have known of an unrevealed hazard associated with the F130 in the B-52 test configuration (FOD susceptibility, FADEC anomaly, software-induced handling quirk, electromagnetic vulnerability) and did not warn the crew or the test planners. The hazard need not be certain; it must be knowable, undisclosed, and dangerous.
Rolls-Royce America is a U.S. subsidiary of Rolls-Royce plc, headquartered in Indianapolis. It will be defended by a national aviation-defense firm, and it is structured to be judgment-resistant. The asset you want is its U.S. operations, its F130 program records, and its indemnity chain back to its parent. Those are precisely the records a spoliation letter and a § 2254(d) request can reach.
Raytheon (RTX) — The AESA Radar Manufacturer
The Air Force’s radar modernization program replaces legacy radar with an active electronically scanned array — a fundamentally different system, with new hardware, new software loads, new cooling, new electromagnetic profile, and new interfaces with the flight-management system. A new radar on its own is unlikely to be the cause of a post-takeoff loss of control — a fact experienced aviation attorneys will concede in the first paragraph of a complaint. But a new radar interacting badly with other new systems, producing electromagnetic interference, generating false flight-control inputs, or interfering with engine controls, is a different question. If the AESA radar, its software, its installation, or its integration with the flight controls contributed to the crash, Raytheon faces the same strict-liability and failure-to-warn theories as Rolls-Royce. Raytheon’s product-liability exposure is at its strongest where the AESA system was newly installed in the test aircraft and the integration testing was abbreviated or waived.
Other Integration Subcontractors (BAE Systems, Collins Aerospace, and Others)
The B-52 modernization program involves a tier of subcontractors: avionics, electrical, hydraulics, structural integration, software loaders. Each subcontractor’s component is a potential failure point, and each is a preserved defendant until the AIB and JAG investigations identify contributing factors. We name them in complaints only after the engineering record supports it — naming a defendant without evidence is a strategic mistake — but we put them on the spoliation list on day one, so their records survive.
The Product-Liability Theory: A Brand-New Engine, a Brand-New Radar, and a 70-Year-Old Airframe
The fact pattern the public knows so far is the spine of the case: a Cold War-era bomber, first flown in the Eisenhower administration, fitted with a brand-new Rolls-Royce F130 engine, a brand-new Raytheon AESA radar, and upgraded avionics, crashed shortly after takeoff on a test sortie. That is a new-product failure on first deployment, and the legal significance is hard to overstate. It shifts the question from “was the pilot qualified and the airframe maintained” to “was the integration of the new equipment into the old airframe performed to a reasonable standard of care, and were the new components themselves airworthy.”
California is a strict product liability state since Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963). The plaintiff does not have to prove that the manufacturer was negligent. The plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, that the defect existed when it left the manufacturer’s control, that the defect caused the harm, and that the harm resulted in damages. A new Rolls-Royce engine that cannot sustain post-takeoff climb on a controlled test flight is the cleanest strict-liability fact pattern we will see in military aviation for years. A new AESA radar that interferes with flight controls is the second.
The defense will respond with a coordinated set of theories: assumption of risk (test flying is inherently dangerous); government contractor defense (Boeing and the OEMs were following Air Force specifications, and the government is immune for design choices); comparative fault of the test crew (pilot error, mission-planning error); inherently dangerous activity (flight testing). Each of these is rebuttable. Assumption of risk does not bar claims by non-crew contractors. The government contractor defense has been narrowed in California and does not protect against strict liability for defects that exceed the government’s specifications. Comparative fault under California pure comparative negligence (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975)) reduces but does not bar recovery. And the dangerous-activity defense does not insulate a manufacturer from a defect that makes the activity more dangerous than it has to be.
California Law: Your Rights in This State
Even when the crash happened on a federal installation, the wrongful-death and survival claims for the contractor and government-civilian families are governed by California law — the law of the place where the crash occurred and where the decedents (or their survivors) reside. The legal architecture has several load-bearing pieces, and each one matters to the value of your case.
The Deadline: Two Years Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1
California’s personal-injury and wrongful-death statute of limitations is two years from the date of injury or death. The clock on your case started the moment your loved one died — not the day the cause was determined, not the day the AIB report was issued, not the day the litigation-hold letter was returned. The deadline is fixed. There is very limited ability to toll it. If you are reading this page within weeks of the crash, you have time. If you are reading it months from now because you were told to wait, you may not.
Comparative Fault: Pure Comparative Negligence
California adopted pure comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). If your loved one is found partly at fault — a 20% allocation, for example, for an alleged test-mission decision — the recovery is reduced by that percentage but is not eliminated. 20% comparative fault on a $20 million case is still $16 million. This matters in a military aviation case because the defense will fight hard to assign percentage points to the test crew, and the entire case value is shaped by how those points are argued.
No General Cap on Wrongful Death Damages
California has no general cap on wrongful death or survival damages. The medical-malpractice cap under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA, recently amended) does not apply. The non-economic cap in certain government-entity cases does not apply to federal contractors or OEMs. The full measure of damages — economic and non-economic — is recoverable.
Joint and Several Liability: Proposition 51
California Civil Code § 1431.2 (Proposition 51) makes defendants severally liable for non-economic damages (each pays only its proportionate share of the fault) but jointly liable for economic damages. In a multi-defendant case, this matters because it allows full economic recovery from any defendant found liable for any portion of the economic loss, while non-economic recovery depends on each defendant’s allocated share. The strategic implication: do not file a case that names only one defendant. File a case that names everyone whose conduct contributed, so that the economic-damages backstop is broad.
Punitive Damages Under California Civil Code § 3294
Punitive damages are recoverable on clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. In a military aviation case, malice is shown by conduct that the defendant knew was dangerous and proceeded with anyway. A new engine that experienced a known FADEC anomaly that was not retested before the test flight. An AESA radar integration that was abbreviated to meet a program deadline. An engine teardown that revealed a manufacturing defect that had been seen on a previous unit but not reported up the chain. Each of these fact patterns, if supported by the AIB report and the engineering record, can support punitive damages against the manufacturer whose conduct crossed the line from negligence to conscious disregard of safety.
Survival Actions: Pre-Death Pain and Suffering
California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30 preserves a decedent’s personal-injury claim for the estate. If your loved one survived the impact for any period — even seconds, even minutes — and experienced conscious pain and suffering, that damage is recoverable through the survival action brought by the personal representative. The survival action is separate from the wrongful-death claim, and the damages are different. Together, the two claims can substantially increase the total recovery.
Wrongful Death Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60
The wrongful-death statute identifies who may bring the claim — the surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and other heirs as defined by California intestate succession law — and the jury determines the measure of damages, which includes the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss to the heirs. California’s pattern jury instructions (CACI 3920, 3921) cover the loss of companionship, consortium, society, comfort, care, protection, training, and advice. These are not capped.
The Military Investigation: The AIB and the Unredacted Report
Military aviation is exempt from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1131(b). The investigation is conducted by an Accident Investigation Board convened under Air Force Materiel Command, governed by AFI 51-307. The AIB produces a privileged Report of Investigation. The privileged report is not producible in litigation.
But there is a second, parallel investigation: the legal investigation conducted by the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps. The JAG investigation produces an unredacted copy of the AIB report, available to eligible claimants under 10 U.S.C. § 2254(d). That statute is the single most important piece of evidence-retrieval law in any military aviation case, and it is the reason an attorney who knows military claims practice is worth what we are about to ask you to consider.
Under § 2254(d), the next of kin of a decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the legal representative of any claimant may request an unredacted copy of the AIB report. The request must be made in writing to the Secretary of the Air Force, on behalf of the claimant, and it must establish eligibility. The report is not admissible in court as evidence, but it is the single best roadmap to the evidence in the case: it identifies the cause, the contributing factors, the witnesses, the maintenance history, the engineering findings, and the personnel findings. With the unredacted report, we know what questions to ask in discovery. Without it, we are guessing.
The § 2254(d) request is one of the first things we file. It can be filed within weeks of the crash. It can take months to be processed. The AIB investigation itself, by regulation, runs approximately 30 to 90 days for the on-scene work and many more months for the final report. The unredacted JAG report may not be available for a year or more. We start the request clock the day you call us, because the processing time is the only thing in this case we cannot control.
The Evidence Clock: What Dies, and When
Military aviation is the most time-sensitive litigation environment in American law. The evidence does not last, and the defendants know it. Here is the schedule, by item, with the deadline after which the evidence is harder to recover or has been destroyed.
Wreckage and Crash Site
The 412th Test Wing at Edwards recovers the wreckage and reduces it (a military term for dismantle, document, and release). Reduction typically begins within days and is largely complete within 30 to 60 days. The Air Force will not reduce wreckage that the AIB determines is materially relevant to the investigation, but the determination is made by the AIB, not by the families, and it is influenced by program priorities. A preservation letter to the AIB and JAG must go out within seven days of the crash. The letter identifies the claimant, asserts the right to preservation, and asks for written confirmation of the reduction schedule and any extension.
F130 Engine Teardown and Metallurgical Analysis
The F130 engine teardown is the most consequential piece of evidence in the case. Sub-components — turbine blades, combustor liners, FADEC electronics, fuel manifolds — may be cut, washed, sectioned, or otherwise destroyed during the teardown. Once sectioned, the metallurgical record is gone. We request observer status for the teardown, and we engage a retained engine failure expert — typically a former military or OEM engineer — to be present, take independent photographs, request sample preservation, and ensure that the test data, inspection records, and component histories are captured before they are released. This is a battle that is won or lost in the first 30 days.
Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder
Military aircraft carry FDRs and CVRs, and the data is downloaded at a lab (typically the Air Force Safety Center). The readout is non-destructive, but the raw chips should be preserved. Counsel requests a copy of the readout under the unredacted-report procedure and asks for independent expert review.
AESA Radar Hardware and Software Load Records
Software load logs, fault logs, and built-in test (BIT) history can be overwritten on the next power-up of the radar. Preservation letters go immediately to Raytheon and to Boeing’s integration team. The specific unit serial number and software version are the keys; once we have them, we can request every record associated with that unit.
Maintenance Records, Technical-Order Compliance, and Service History
Recoverable for years under DCMA retention rules, but format and completeness degrade. Spoliation letter to the base records office and to Boeing.
Test Mission Plan, Risk Assessment, and Test-Card Authorizations
The “what was supposed to happen” documents. These are subject to AIB privilege in their privileged form but are obtainable through JAG FOIA and through discovery in the civil case once filed. The risk assessment in particular is the document that supports or defeats the punitive-damages theory — a risk assessment that identified the failure mode and was not addressed is the heart of a conscious disregard argument.
Range Control and Air Traffic Control Recordings and Transcripts
Digital and tape overwrite cycles vary. Immediate preservation request to Edwards Range Operations and to the controlling ATC facility.
Engineering Change Proposals, First-Article Inspection, and Qualification Test Data
Records retention is 10-plus years under DCMA, but specific project files may be archived or destroyed. Litigation hold goes out the same day as the spoliation letter.
Witness Statements
Initial 24-to-72-hour statements are the most valuable. The AIB will interview the flight-test engineers, the range control officers, the ground crew, and the last maintenance personnel. Counsel may attend as an observer with limitations. The AIB statements are not producible in their privileged form, but the JAG statements are, and the witnesses’ later depositions are producible.
The Playbook: What Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Raytheon, and the Air Force Will Do in the Next 30 Days
Every defendant in this case is going to run a version of the same playbook. They have done it before. They will do it again. The playbook is calibrated to extract concessions from grieving families before the families have had time to find a lawyer. Here are the plays you will see, and the counter to each.
Play 1: The Boeing Sympathy Call and the Final-Pay Release
Boeing HR will call within 48 hours. The call will be warm. The caller will express condolences, offer to handle logistics, and offer a “final pay” package and a lump-sum death benefit. The package will be accompanied by a release. The release will look like a workers’ compensation form. It will not be. It will contain language that releases Boeing, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, its suppliers, its contractors, and anyone else who might be a defendant — including Rolls-Royce and Raytheon — from any and all claims arising out of the death.
Counter. Do not sign the release. Do not cash the check before the release is reviewed by an attorney who can identify whether the language covers third-party claims. Workers’ compensation death benefits are typically separate from civil third-party claims, and a properly drafted workers’ comp settlement does not affect the right to sue non-employer third parties. The lump-sum offer is the carrot. The release is the trap. Read both with counsel present.
Play 2: The Recorded-Statement Request from the Insurer or the OEM
Within days, a representative of Boeing’s insurer, or a representative of Rolls-Royce or Raytheon’s claims team, will call to “check on you” and ask for a recorded statement. The call is engineered to get you to say things the defense can quote later. “I think my loved one was tired.” “I think the mission was behind schedule.” “I think Boeing was pushing hard on the program.” Each statement is a brick in a comparative-fault wall.
Counter. Do not give a recorded statement to anyone. Not to Boeing, not to Rolls-Royce, not to Raytheon, not to any insurer. Politely say you are grieving and that all inquiries should go through your attorney. We handle every call. We respond in writing, when at all. We do not give the defense a transcript.
Play 3: The AIB Interview Without Counsel
The AIB will want to interview family members. The interviewer will be an experienced military investigator. The tone will be respectful. The interview will feel like a chance to help. It is also a chance for the AIB to lock in your version of the timeline, your loved one’s state of mind, and your family’s understanding of the mission.
Counter. You have the right to have counsel present as a contractor or government-civilian family claimant. We attend with you. We do not prevent you from talking. We prevent the interview from becoming a statement that helps the defense later.
Play 4: The Bereavement Counselor and the Life-Insurance Liaison
Boeing or its claims administrator may assign you a bereavement counselor or a life-insurance liaison. The person is often kind, often helpful, and often specifically trained to keep you inside the Boeing system and out of the hands of an outside attorney. The same person may begin suggesting that a lawsuit is unnecessary, that Boeing will “do the right thing,” that “the investigation will show it was the engine,” and that “we can get you compensation without the fight.”
Counter. Accept the counseling. Use the life insurance. Do not let the person steer your legal decisions. Your legal decisions are made by your lawyer, not by Boeing’s counselor. We have seen this exact play in refinery cases, in construction cases, and in offshore cases. It is the same playbook every time.
Play 5: The Social Media Mining and the GoFundMe Argument
The defense will monitor your public social media, your family’s accounts, and any fundraising pages. Posts about the crash, your loved one’s role, or the mission are pulled and used for comparative fault. Significant donations from Boeing-affiliated charities can be used to argue mitigation of damages — that your economic loss was reduced by the gifts.
Counter. Take down nothing; just post nothing more about the crash, the mission, or your loved one’s work. If you start or are the beneficiary of a GoFundMe or other fundraising, route the funds through a structure that is clearly earmarked for grief support and not for general family expenses. Do not accept significant donations from Boeing or Boeing-affiliated entities without counsel review. Mitigation is a real doctrine, and the amount at stake is real.
The Damages: What This Case Is Worth
Aviation wrongful-death verdicts against original-equipment manufacturers and prime contractors routinely exceed $10 million to $25 million per victim, and the upper end climbs when the fact pattern is a new-product failure and the jurisdiction is a no-cap state. In a case involving a brand-new Rolls-Royce F130 engine and a brand-new Raytheon AESA radar on a 70-year-old airframe, in California, the realistic per-decedent value range is $5 million to $40 million or more, with the upper end driven by:
- The strict product liability theory, which eliminates proof problems the family would otherwise face.
- Punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294, on clear and convincing evidence of conscious disregard — for example, a known FADEC anomaly that was not retested, or a test-flight risk that was accepted to meet a program deadline.
- California’s no-cap regime on wrongful death damages, with full economic and full non-economic recovery.
- High-earning, young-to-midcareer decedents — engineers and program personnel whose future earnings, pension, 401(k), and household-services contributions are large.
- The survival action for pre-death pain and suffering, recoverable if there was a survivable post-impact interval.
The lower end is driven by: the Feres bar that may cap the total claimant pool; possible assumption-of-risk and inherent-danger-of-flight defenses; Boeing’s workers’ comp exclusivity for the Boeing decedents’ claims against Boeing; and government-contractor work-for-hire defenses (which are weakened in a strict-liability case but not eliminated). The aggregate multi-defendant exposure across the program — Boeing, Rolls-Royce America, Raytheon, and the United States — could exceed $200 million, which is the reason every defendant will run the playbook above.
The Proof Story: How the Case Is Built, Step by Step
Here is how a military aviation case of this kind is actually built, by a trial team that has run cases against the largest defense contractors in the world. We walk the steps so that you know what to expect, and so that you know what we are doing when we are not calling you back within the hour.
Week One: Preservation and Positioning
The litigation-hold and spoliation letters go out the same day you sign the engagement agreement — to Boeing, to Rolls-Royce America, to Raytheon, to the 412th Test Wing at Edwards, to the 412th Operations Group, to the Air Force Materiel Command AIB, to Boeing’s El Segundo and Oklahoma City integration offices, and to Rolls-Royce’s Indianapolis facility. The Form 95 administrative tort claim is drafted for filing with the appropriate Air Force JAG office to preserve FTCA exposure. The 10 U.S.C. § 2254(d) request for the unredacted AIB report is prepared.
Months One Through Three: Expert Engagement and Evidence Capture
We engage the expert team: a former USAF AIB member as aerospace accident reconstructionist, a Rolls-Royce/TF33/F130 specialist as engine failure analyst, a human-factors expert, a military flight-test operations expert, and a product-liability economist. We request observer status for the wreckage teardown and the engine teardown. We capture the test mission plan, the risk assessment, and the test-card authorizations through JAG FOIA. We capture the maintenance records, the technical-order compliance history, and the engineering change proposals through the DCMA records process.
Months Three Through Twelve: Discovery and Depositions
We file the civil complaint — typically in the Central District of California or in Los Angeles County Superior Court, not in Kern County, where the jury pool is military-friendly and conservative. We serve written discovery. We depose the Boeing test conductor, the F130 integration lead, the Rolls-Royce F130 program engineer, the Raytheon AESA program engineer, the 412th Test Wing chief engineer, the maintenance lead, and the range control officers. We litigate the three privilege walls: AIB privilege, military state-secrets privilege, and contractor proprietary data. Each requires an in-camera inspection demand and a strong showing of need.
Year Two Through Resolution: Dispositive Motions, Daubert, and Trial
Daubert challenges on opposing experts, summary judgment motions on the government-contractor defense, and bellwether trial in any MDL consolidation. The unredacted AIB report, when produced, is the inflection point — it tells us whether the cause is engine, radar, integration, or something else, and it tells us whether the defense’s comparative-fault theory has any support.
The First 72 Hours: A Family Roadmap
You will not be able to do all of this. You will be in shock. You will be making funeral arrangements. You will be receiving visitors. You will be answering the same questions forty times. This is the part of the page you can hand to a sibling, a parent, a friend who is helping you — the practical things that need to happen in the first 72 hours, listed in the order they should happen.
- Take the calls you have to take; postpone the rest. The Air Force casualty assistance call, the Boeing HR call, the mortuary call. The rest can wait. You are not required to answer Boeing’s claims call in the first 48 hours. Politely say you are grieving and that you will respond when you are able.
- Do not give a recorded statement to anyone. Not to Boeing, not to Rolls-Royce, not to Raytheon, not to any insurer. If asked, refer them to your attorney.
- Do not sign any release, settlement, or final-pay document. Read everything with counsel. A release signed in grief is a release that cannot be undone.
- Do not post about the crash, the mission, or your loved one’s work on social media. Take down nothing. Post nothing new.
- Preserve your loved one’s records. Their phone, their laptop, their work email, their personal notes, their calendar. They are evidence. Do not destroy them, do not “clean them out,” and do not let anyone from Boeing or the Air Force image or collect them without your consent and counsel present.
- Write down everything you remember. The last conversation. The mission timeline. What your loved one said about the program, the schedule, the test. The names of the people they worked with. The first-year memories are the freshest, and they are admissible in the eventual case in a way that later reconstructions are not.
- Call an attorney who handles military contractor aviation cases. This is a 24/7 call. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free, confidential, and there is no fee unless we win.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a military family sue the federal government after a military aviation crash?
No. Under the Feres doctrine (Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950)), active-duty service members and their families cannot sue the United States for injuries or death arising incident to military service. They retain federal administrative remedies — Survivor Benefit Plan, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, and military casualty programs — that a separate, military-benefits specialist handles. The families of contractors and government civilians on the same flight are not barred by Feres and may pursue civil claims.
Can the family of a Boeing employee on the flight sue Boeing?
Directly, no — California workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer for work-related death, in most circumstances. But the Boeing families can pursue third-party product-liability and negligence claims against Rolls-Royce America and Raytheon, and may have narrow paths to sue Boeing under the gross-negligence carve-out, the dual-capacity doctrine, or third-party indemnity. They can also pursue the United States under the FTCA for negligent conduct by Air Force personnel.
What is the statute of limitations on a California wrongful-death claim arising from a military aviation crash?
Two years from the date of death, under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. The clock starts at death, not at the date the cause is determined. The FTCA claim against the United States has its own two-year clock and requires administrative exhaustion before suit.
What damages are available in a California military aviation wrongful-death case?
Economic damages (future earnings, lost benefits, pension, household services), non-economic damages (loss of companionship, consortium, society, comfort, care, protection, training, advice), survival damages for pre-death pain and suffering, punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294 on clear and convincing evidence, loss of inheritance, and funeral and burial expenses. There is no general cap on wrongful-death damages in California.
What is the Accident Investigation Board (AIB) and why does it matter?
The AIB is the Air Force body that investigates military aviation mishaps under AFI 51-307. Its report is privileged, but a separate JAG legal investigation produces an unredacted copy available to eligible claimants under 10 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The unredacted AIB report is the single most valuable document in any military aviation case because it identifies the cause, the contributing factors, the witnesses, and the engineering record — and it is the roadmap for every deposition and every expert engagement.
Why is the engine teardown so important?
The F130 engine is a brand-new product on a brand-new platform. The teardown reveals whether the engine failed because of a design defect, a manufacturing defect, a maintenance failure, or an integration problem. Sub-components — turbine blades, combustor liners, FADEC electronics — are cut, washed, or destroyed during the teardown. Once destroyed, the metallurgical record is gone. The fight to have an expert present at the teardown is won in the first 30 days.
Should I talk to the AIB or to AFOSI?
As a contractor or government-civilian family, you have the right to have counsel present at any interview. We attend with you. We do not prevent you from talking. We prevent the interview from becoming a statement that helps the defense later. The AIB and AFOSI interviews are not the same as a deposition, and the statements made in them can be used in ways that are not always obvious to a grieving family member.
What if my loved one was a government civilian, not a contractor?
The FTCA is your primary route against the United States, with administrative exhaustion required within two years (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); § 2675(a)). The OEMs — Rolls-Royce America, Raytheon, and potentially Boeing for integration — remain as third-party defendants on the strict-liability and negligence theories. The recovery under the FTCA is economic and limited non-economic; punitive damages are not available against the United States, but they may be available against the manufacturers in a parallel state-court action.
What if my loved one was a contractor other than Boeing — for example, a BAE Systems employee?
The same analysis applies, with the workers’ comp exclusivity running against the contractor employer rather than Boeing. The OEMs remain in the case as third-party defendants. The FTCA is not available against the United States for the contractor’s own employer’s conduct, but it is available for the negligent conduct of Air Force personnel.
How much does it cost to hire Attorney911 for a case like this?
The consultation is free. We work on contingency — no fee unless we win. The case-cost expenses (expert fees, deposition transcripts, filing fees) are advanced by the firm and recovered out of any recovery. You pay nothing up front. You owe us nothing if we do not recover for you.
How long does a case like this take?
Military aviation cases typically take two to four years from filing to resolution. The pace is set by the AIB investigation, the JAG report request, the discovery schedule, and the court’s docket. Punitive-damages cases take longer because of the heightened proof standard and the more aggressive defense motion practice. The first 12 months are the evidence-preservation and expert-engagement phase. The second 12 months are the discovery and deposition phase. The third 12 months and beyond are the dispositive-motion and trial phase.
Why This Firm, and What Happens When You Call
This is not a case for a generalist. The overlap of federal procurement law, military claims practice, AIB procedure, JAG procedure, the FTCA, the Feres doctrine, California’s product-liability regime, and the multi-defendant architecture of a major defense program is the kind of case that rewards a trial team that has done it before. We have.
Ralph Manginello is the founding trial attorney of this firm. He has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. Before law school, he was a trained journalist — a B.J. from the University of Texas at Austin, 1995 — and before that, a starting point guard on the 1989 New England Prep School championship team at Cheshire Academy, an experience that taught him how to read a defense and how to run a room. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas (Bar Card No. 24007597), admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and he has been fighting large corporate defendants — including in the BP Texas City refinery-explosion litigation — for the better part of three decades. The firm has recovered more than $50 million for Texas families since 1998. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. He hosts the Attorney 911 Podcast and the firm’s YouTube channel, where he breaks down the kinds of cases we handle in plain English.
Lupe Peña is an associate attorney with this firm and the team’s insider on the other side of the table. Before he joined the plaintiff side, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance defense firm — the rooms where adjusters decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims, and where Colossus-style software undervalues injuries. He knows how carriers code claims, how defense counsel prepares the first 72 hours of a case file, and how the playbook you just read is actually run, because he used to run it. He is a third-generation Texan with family roots tying to the King Ranch, a B.B.A. in International Business from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, and a J.D. from South Texas College of Law Houston. He serves families fully in Spanish, and we say so with pride — Hablamos Español — because the families we serve are bilingual, and the language of your grief should not be the language of your lawyer.
When you call 1-888-ATTY-911, a real person answers. The call is free, confidential, and there is no fee unless we win. We will ask you what happened, when it happened, who has called you, what you have signed, and what your loved one’s role was on the flight. We will tell you, in the first call, whether we are the right firm for your case. If we are not, we will tell you who is. That is the same advice we give every family, in every case, in every jurisdiction — and it is the only kind of advice that builds the kind of trust a case like this requires.
The first consultation is the moment the case becomes a case, and the moment the playbook stops being theirs and starts being ours. Call 1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.
This page provides general legal information about military contractor aviation cases in California and is not legal advice for any specific case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The attorney-client relationship is formed only by a written engagement agreement signed by both the client and the firm.
