What the Family of the Deceased Is Facing Right Now
The call came in the middle of the night, or in the hour after midnight, or in the early morning while a stretch of Loop 20 near Saunders Street was still closed in both directions. Someone — a hospital, a sheriff’s deputy, a NetJets representative, a friend who saw it on the news — told you a Cessna Citation Latitude went down on a Texas highway after departing San José del Cabo. One person did not come home. Five are in hospitals. A car on Loop 20 was struck by a piece of falling aircraft. The FBI walked the debris field. The NTSB took over the investigation. And you are reading this page between phone calls, between the questions no one can answer yet, between the news trucks pulling up to the overpass and the family group chat that will not stop buzzing.
If that is you — the spouse or parent or child of the person who did not survive, the survivor in a hospital bed being asked to give a recorded statement to someone you just met, the motorist on Loop 20 whose car was hit by a thirty-thousand-pound piece of aircraft while you were driving to work — you are reading the right page. Aviation crashes on Texas highways are not in any manual. They are in our experience, in the federal regulations and the Texas wrongful-death statute and the international treaty that govern the case, and in the playbooks the defense team has already started running. This page is built to give you all three: the law, the playbooks, and the people who know how to handle both.
You are not alone. The call you make today is the one that starts the clock working for you instead of against you. We pick up 24 hours a day at 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free, and there is no fee unless we win.
What Happened on Loop 20 — And Why It Is Not a Car Accident
On the evening of June 16, 2026, a NetJets-operated Cessna Citation Latitude departed San José del Cabo, Mexico, at 6:18 p.m. local time. The aircraft was bound for Austin, Texas. The Laredo airport tower reported a mechanical issue and lost contact with the aircraft shortly before it went down on Loop 20 near Saunders Street, scattering debris across multiple lanes of a major Texas border highway. Six people were on board. One did not survive. Five were transported to a hospital in stable condition. A car on Loop 20 was struck. Bystanders — including one man with a sledgehammer and another with a shovel — broke the cockpit glass to reach trapped occupants while the burning wreckage threatened to explode. Loop 20 was closed in both directions and remained closed through the next day. The FBI and NTSB assumed control of the scene.
What we know today will be a fraction of what we know in twelve months, when the NTSB’s probable-cause report is finished. What we also know is this: when an aircraft goes down on a Texas highway, the legal and factual work that follows is unlike a car wreck, unlike a trucking case, and unlike almost anything else. There are federal investigators with exclusive authority over the wreckage. There is an international treaty that applies because the flight originated in Mexico. There is a Part 135 operator (NetJets) backed by a Berkshire Hathaway balance sheet. There is a manufacturer (Textron Aviation) and engine maker (Pratt & Whitney Canada) whose own records are about to become evidence. And there is a 30-day window — measured from the date of the crash — to ask the NTSB for a seat at the investigation. That window is closing now. It is the single most important deadline in this case that is not on a calendar.
If you are the family of the person who died, the next ninety days will hold the appointment of a personal representative for the estate, the wrongful-death and survival-action filings, the preservation letters, and the decision about where to file. If you are one of the five injured, the next thirty days will hold the insurance adjusters calling, the recorded-statement requests, and the medical-record decisions that drive every later number. If you are the motorist on Loop 20, the next thirty days will hold the tow-yard questions and the question of who pays for a car destroyed by a piece of aircraft that fell out of the sky.
The Defendant Map: Who Can Be Liable When a NetJets Jet Falls on a Texas Highway
NetJets will tell you, through its insurer, that this was pilot error or an act of God or a freak mechanical event no one could have predicted. The first sentence is almost always wrong, and the second sentence is almost always a defense — never an answer. The actual answer is found in a defendant map that has at least six possible stops, and the right ones depend on what the NTSB investigation eventually says about the ‘mechanical issue’ the tower reported. Here is who we map from day one.
NetJets Aviation, Inc. — the Part 135 operator. NetJets is the world’s largest fractional jet operator, a wholly-owned Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Under 14 CFR Part 135, NetJets is the direct operator of the flight, meaning vicarious liability attaches to NetJets for any negligence of its pilots, dispatchers, or maintenance personnel. The ‘mechanical issue’ the tower reported is the inference that opens the case against NetJets: a Part 135 operator has independent duties under 14 CFR §§ 135.1, 135.411, 135.413, and 135.415 to maintain its aircraft, inspect them, identify defects, and correct them before flight. A mechanical issue that surfaces in the air is, on its face, a maintenance-system failure. NetJets also faces strict liability under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention because the flight originated in San José del Cabo — international carriage — and the crash caused death and injury ‘on board the aircraft.’ The Convention’s strict-liability floor is 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (approximately US$153,000) per passenger, with a rebuttable presumption of liability above that. NetJets’ insurance tower is substantial; recoverable limits typically run into the hundreds of millions of dollars across the global aviation market. They are the primary defendant for the family of the deceased and the five injured plane occupants.
The NetJets pilots — the captain and first officer. Individual pilot negligence is part of the same claim. Their qualification files, training records, duty-and-rest logs, and medical certificates become discoverable. The proof of pilot error shifts the focus to training and crew resource management; the proof of mechanical failure shifts the focus to maintenance. Either path leads back to NetJets under respondeat superior, but the personal-capacity claim keeps the individuals in the case and creates deposition pressure the company cannot fully control.
The NetJets maintenance organization — in-house or contracted Part 145 repair station. The ‘mechanical issue’ the tower reported is the headline evidence here. Under 14 CFR Part 43 and Part 145, every inspection, repair, and modification must be documented in the aircraft’s maintenance records, with sign-off by a certificated mechanic. Airworthiness Directive (AD) compliance is mandatory. Minimum Equipment List (MEL) usage and Configuration Deviation List (CDL) usage are recorded. A preservation letter to NetJets’ Director of Maintenance, sent within the first week, demands: the complete maintenance file for the airframe and both Pratt & Whitney Canada PW306D1 engines, every AD compliance record, every service bulletin incorporation record, every deferred-discrepancy entry, and every component-replacement record. The maintenance file is the case.
Textron Aviation Inc. — manufacturer of the Cessna Citation Latitude (Model 680A). If the NTSB eventually identifies a design or manufacturing defect — a fuel-system failure, an autopilot anomaly, an ice-protection issue, an engine-mount or flight-control defect — Textron Aviation is in the case. Texas recognizes all three products-liability theories (manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn) under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.001 et seq. Textron has been the subject of multiple FAA Airworthiness Directives on the Citation Latitude family over the service life of the type. The component subcontractors — Honeywell, Garmin, Rockwell Collins — are additional defendants where their components are implicated.
Pratt & Whitney Canada — engine manufacturer. If the mechanical issue originated in the engines (PW306D1 turbofans), P&WC is in the case. Strict products liability and negligence are both available. Any recent service bulletins, ADs, or known-failure modes on the PW306D1 family become discoverable. The engine tear-down — done under NTSB custody with party-participation access — is the central physical evidence.
The unknown driver and occupants of the struck vehicle on Loop 20. These are victims, not tortfeasors. Their state-law negligence claim against NetJets is not subject to the Montreal Convention’s limits at all, because the Convention applies to passengers ‘on board the aircraft.’ A Texas motorist struck by a piece of falling aircraft has a Texas-law negligence claim — pure Texas tort doctrine, Texas jury, Texas damages. For the right family in the right case, this is the highest-value individual claim in the wreckage: a car-accident case with aviation-grade insurance behind it.
Texas Wrongful Death Law for Aviation Cases
Texas law governs who may file, what they may recover, and how long they have. Here is the framework, in the words of the statutes themselves.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.002 (persons entitled to bring wrongful death action): “An action for actual damages arising from an injury that causes an individual’s death may be brought by: (1) the surviving spouse of the deceased; (2) the surviving children of the deceased; or (3) the surviving parents of the deceased, or (4) the administrator or executor of the deceased’s estate acting for the benefit of the persons listed in this section.” Standing is strictly limited. If you do not fit one of those four categories, Texas does not give you a wrongful-death claim — though you may have an independent claim for your own injuries, your own property damage, or your own loss of consortium.
Texas recovers four categories of damages in a wrongful-death action: pecuniary loss (the financial support the decedent would have provided), loss of companionship and society (what the relationship was worth in non-monetary terms), mental anguish (the grief, the loss, the ongoing pain of the absence), and loss of inheritance (what the decedent would have accumulated and left behind). Texas does not impose a general cap on compensatory damages in wrongful-death or personal-injury cases — the caps that exist apply only to medical malpractice under § 74.301 and similar narrow categories. This is a meaningful difference from many other states and is part of why high-value aviation cases can be filed here.
Texas has abolished punitive damages within the wrongful-death statute itself. Punitive damages are still available — through a survival action under § 71.021, brought by the estate for the decedent’s pre-death conscious pain and suffering and any punitive exposure. That distinction matters in a NetJets case. If the evidence shows the company knew of a recurring mechanical issue and flew the aircraft anyway, or ignored an Airworthiness Directive, or kept a fatigued crew on the line — the survival-action punitive claim is the leverage that turns a settlement into a number Berkshire cannot ignore. Punitive damages in Texas require clear and convincing evidence under § 41.003, the highest civil burden in Texas tort law. That is a real bar. But it is not a closed door, and Berkshire’s public reputation is exactly the kind of exposure a punitive claim is built for.
Texas is a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction under § 33.001. If the decedent is found to be more than 50% at fault, the wrongful-death claim is barred entirely. If the decedent is 50% or less at fault, recovery is reduced by the percentage. Pilots and passengers do not typically carry fault in a mechanical-failure case, but the defense will look for any pre-flight conduct, any failure to follow crew instructions, any medical or impairment fact that can be spun into percentage points. Every percentage point is money.
You have two years from the date of death to file the wrongful-death claim, and two years from the date of injury to file any personal-injury claim, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. That sounds like a long time. It is not. The preservation windows close in days and weeks, the NTSB party-status window closes in 30 days, and the defense has its experts and investigators in place long before the first complaint is filed. The deadline is real, but the deadline is not the only clock.
The Montreal Convention: Why an International Flight Changes the Rules
Because the flight departed San José del Cabo, Mexico, the Montreal Convention of 1999 — implemented in the United States through 49 U.S.C. § 40105 — applies. The Convention is the international treaty that governs liability for death or bodily injury to passengers during international air carriage. It is not a defense. It is a separate liability regime that runs in addition to Texas tort law, with specific rules about who pays, how much, and where you can sue.
Article 17 — strict liability for death or bodily injury caused by an accident. The carrier is strictly liable for death or bodily injury to a passenger ‘on board the aircraft’ caused by an ‘accident’ during international carriage. There is no fault requirement at the floor. If the passenger died and the death was caused by the crash, NetJets is on the hook as a matter of treaty law — no need to prove pilot error or maintenance failure. The Convention’s strict-liability floor is 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (the international reserve asset defined by the IMF), which converts to roughly US$153,000 per passenger at current SDR-to-dollar rates. The floor can be revised; verify the current figure at filing.
Article 21 — the presumption above the floor. Above the 113,100 SDR floor, the carrier is presumed liable, and the carrier can escape liability only by proving the death or injury was not caused by its negligence, or that the death or injury was caused solely by the negligence or wrongful act of a third party. The presumption is rebuttable, but the burden shifts to the carrier. In a mechanical-failure case, that is a heavy lift for the defense.
Article 33 — where you can sue. The Convention gives passengers a choice of forum. A passenger may bring an action in: (1) the carrier’s domicile (NetJets is in Columbus, Ohio); (2) the carrier’s principal place of business; (3) the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made; or (4) the passenger’s final destination. The original destination of the flight was Austin, Texas. That makes Texas — and specifically the federal or state courts in Travis County, or the Western District of Texas — a defensible Convention forum. The defense will file a forum challenge. We answer it with the destination rule.
Article 35 — the two-year limitation. The Convention imposes its own two-year limitation period from the date of arrival at destination, the date the aircraft should have arrived, or the date the carriage stopped. Texas’s two-year personal-injury SOL is the same length, which means the deadlines line up cleanly in most cases — but the Convention’s ‘date of arrival’ calculation can differ from Texas’s accrual rules, and a passenger who was hospitalized for months after the crash may have a different Convention date than the date of death. This is technical ground where a wrong assumption can be fatal to the case.
What the Convention does NOT cover. The Convention covers passengers ‘on board the aircraft.’ The motorist struck on Loop 20 was not on board. The motorist’s claim is a pure Texas-law negligence claim, with Texas damages and no Convention cap. That is why the motorist’s case can be the single highest-value claim in this disaster — and why the defense will work to settle that claim quickly and quietly.
The Evidence Clock: What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Disappears
Federal regulations require records to be created. Federal regulations also allow those records to be destroyed. The gap between creation and destruction is the window in which a case is won or lost. Here is the clock for an aviation case on a Texas highway.
FAA air traffic control voice recordings — 45 to 120 days. The Laredo airport tower (KLRD) and Houston TRACON/ARTCC hold the voice recordings of every communication between the aircraft and the ground — the pilot’s report of the mechanical issue, the tower’s instructions, the loss of contact, the distress calls (if any). Under FAA Order 8020.11, these recordings are typically retained only 45 to 120 days before routine overwriting. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is filed immediately, and a preservation request is sent to the FAA simultaneously. This is the evidence that tells us exactly what the crew said, what the tower told them, and what the aircraft was doing in the last minutes. It is also the evidence the defense will try to characterize before our experts can listen to it themselves.
Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data — NTSB custody, party-status access only. The Citation Latitude’s FDR records hundreds of parameters — airspeed, altitude, engine performance, control inputs, autopilot state, system faults, pitch and roll attitude — in the seconds and minutes before impact. The NTSB will secure the FDR within hours of the crash. A party who has been designated under 49 CFR § 831.11 has the right to have a Technical Advisor present at the NTSB readout, to ask questions, to receive factual reports, and to participate in the investigation. A party who has not been designated has no access. The 30-day window to request party status is not a technicality. It is the gate.
NetJets maintenance records, AD compliance logbooks, MEL/CDL usage — preservation letter required. Under 14 CFR § 91.417, NetJets is required to retain maintenance records for the airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, and appliances — including the date of the last inspection, the total time on the airframe, the current status of life-limited parts, and the time since the last overhaul. But routine destruction cycles purge older records. A litigation hold letter sent to NetJets’ General Counsel and Director of Maintenance in the first week freezes the records and creates spoliation exposure if anything goes missing. Texas recognizes intentional spoliation of evidence as its own tort (the Texas spoliation doctrine), and the destroyed-record inference is admissible at trial under Tex. R. Evid. 703. If they destroy it, the jury gets to hear what was probably in it.
NetJets pilot qualification, training, duty/rest, and medical records. Pilot records are subject to the same retention rules and the same routine-purge risk. The preservation letter to NetJets’ Director of Operations and to each pilot individually (where their identity is known) covers: training files, proficiency checks, line checks, FAA medical certificates, duty-and-rest logs, and any prior incident reports. Pilot fatigue is one of the leading causes in NTSB investigations; the records tell us whether the captain had been on duty for the legally permitted hours, or whether the schedule pushed the edge.
FlightRadar24 and ADS-B third-party tracking data — 90 days. Independent commercial flight-tracking services and the FAA’s ADS-B network hold independent records of the aircraft’s position, altitude, speed, and heading. These are useful for two reasons. First, they corroborate (or contradict) the FAA’s official reconstruction. Second, they are held by third parties who are not subject to NetJets’ preservation order — so a direct litigation hold to FlightRadar24 and the other tracking services is required. Ninety days is the typical retention window; preservation demands go out in week one.
Witness cell phone video and bystander photographs — already circulating, will be taken down. The bystander with the sledgehammer is one of the most powerful witnesses this case will ever have. The bystander with the shovel is another. There are likely dozens of dashcams, cell-phone videos, and security-camera clips from the surrounding commercial properties showing the aircraft’s descent, the impact, the fire, the rescue. Many are already on social media. The preservation letter identifies the witnesses, demands they preserve the footage, and secures the underlying metadata. A subpoena to the social-media platforms and the cell-phone carriers follows when the litigation is filed. Footage taken down in the first week is footage we may never see.
The damaged vehicle on Loop 20 — EDR, damage pattern, occupant data. Modern passenger vehicles carry Event Data Recorders (EDRs) that record pre-impact speed, brake application, throttle, steering input, and seatbelt status. The EDR in the struck vehicle is central to documenting the moment the aircraft hit. The vehicle is at a Texas DPS or Laredo PD impound lot; spoliation risk is high. An inspection order is sought within the first thirty days. The damage pattern itself — where the aircraft struck, the trajectory of debris, the crush profile — is documented by an accident-reconstruction engineer before the vehicle is moved or scrapped.
NetJets dispatch, flight-following, and operational control records. These are the records that show pre-flight decisions: weather briefings, NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen), the diversion decision, the crew-scheduling record, the dispatcher’s decision to release the flight, the fuel load, the alternate-airport choices. They are subject to preservation but are routinely purged in the normal records-management cycle. They are the records that show whether the mechanical issue was a known problem, whether a previous crew had reported it, and whether the company chose to fly the aircraft into the air knowing something was wrong.
Airframe and engine wreckage — NTSB custody, Technical Advisor access. The NTSB retains custody of the wreckage. A party designated under § 831.11 may name a Technical Advisor to be present during the examination, to propose areas of examination, and to receive the factual reports. The engine tear-down is the central physical evidence if the mechanical issue was power-plant related. The flight-control examination is the central physical evidence if the issue was control-system related. The fuel-system examination is central if the issue was fuel-related. The Technical Advisor is the only path to having an expert’s eyes on the wreckage while the evidence is fresh.
The 30-Day NTSB Party Status Window
Under 49 CFR § 831.11, any ‘party whose interests are not adequately represented’ may file a request to participate in the NTSB investigation as a party. The request must be made within thirty days of the crash. The window is narrow. The consequences of missing it are real.
A designated party receives: (1) timely notice of investigative activities; (2) access to the factual reports developed by the NTSB; (3) the right to attend investigative hearings; (4) the right to have a Technical Advisor present at wreckage examinations; (5) the right to submit proposals for areas of investigation; and (6) the right to receive the Safety Board’s final report.
The pilot, the operator (NetJets), the manufacturer (Textron Aviation), and the engine manufacturer (P&WC) will all request party status — they are virtually automatic in a major aviation accident. The aircraft maintenance organization will request it. The surviving passengers and the family of the deceased are entitled to request it. The decision to designate is made by the NTSB’s Investigator-in-Charge, but the request itself is the gate. The thirty-day window is the only window. A request filed on day 31 will be denied as untimely.
The party status is not a substitute for civil discovery. It is investigatory. But the factual reports the party receives become discovery targets in the civil case, and the Technical Advisor’s notes on the wreckage examination become the foundation for the expert reports we will use at depositions and at trial. The investigation and the civil litigation are parallel tracks, and the NTSB party is the only seat that gets to ride both at once.
The NetJets Defense Playbook — and the Counter to Each Move
NetJets is a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary. It does not respond to a claim the way a regional airline does. It deploys a coordinated, well-funded defense within hours, and the playbook is recognizable to anyone who has handled a major aviation case. Here is what to expect, and here is the counter to each move.
Play 1: The recorded-statement call from a ‘concerned’ NetJets representative. Within forty-eight hours of the crash, a sympathetic-sounding adjuster or corporate-representative contacts the family or the survivors to ‘check in,’ ‘see how everyone is doing,’ and ‘just get a quick account of what happened.’ The conversation is being recorded. The recorded statement will be played back at the deposition and at trial. Statements like ‘I’m feeling better,’ ‘it was just a rough landing,’ or ‘I don’t think I need a lawyer’ become the defense’s exhibit A. Counter: Do not give a recorded statement to anyone from NetJets, its insurer, or any representative they direct you to. Refer every call to us. We will handle every communication. The two-minute courtesy call is worth a six-figure settlement reduction to the defense, and they know it.
Play 2: The quick settlement offer tied to the Montreal Convention floor. The defense will offer 113,100 SDRs (the Convention’s strict-liability floor) plus a small ‘additional accommodation.’ They will frame it as the ‘full Convention limit’ and suggest that taking it is the practical, rational move. Counter: The Convention floor is the floor, not the ceiling. Above it, the presumption of liability shifts to the carrier. A settlement at the floor, before the NTSB report, before discovery, before expert review, surrenders the entire upside of the case — and it is the upside that funds a real recovery. A settlement at the floor is a settlement the family will regret for decades.
Play 3: The pilot-error narrative to deflect from maintenance and design. If the defense can convince the NTSB (and later the jury) that the captain mismanaged the emergency — handled the controls incorrectly, failed to follow checklist procedures, made a fuel-management error — the case becomes a pilot’s-individual-conduct case. The pilot’s insurance is small. The corporate defendant’s exposure under the Montreal Convention drops. Counter: The pilot is a NetJets employee, and respondeat superior makes the company liable for the pilot’s negligence regardless. The ‘pilot error’ theory is not a defense to corporate liability — it is a basis for it. The investigation must pressure-test every ‘pilot error’ theory against the maintenance records, the AD compliance log, the prior-incident history, the dispatch decisions, and the manufacturer and engine records. If the error was the predictable consequence of a known-bad aircraft or a known-fatigue-crew schedule, the error is the company’s.
Play 4: The forum challenge. NetJets is a Columbus, Ohio company. They will file a motion to dismiss for improper venue in any Texas state or federal court that does not satisfy Article 33 of the Montreal Convention or the general venue statutes. Counter: The original destination of the flight was Austin, Texas. Texas is a permissible Convention forum under Article 33(1)(c). For the motorists and Texas-resident victims, Texas is also the forum of injury, the forum of domicile, and the forum where the witnesses and evidence are concentrated. The forum challenge is fought in the trial court, the appellate court, and (if necessary) the Texas Supreme Court. We have been there.
Play 5: The social-media mining operation. The defense will monitor the social media of the survivors, the family, the friends, and the witnesses. A Facebook photo from a survivor’s hospital-room visitor smiling at a joke becomes ‘evidence the injury is not as serious as claimed.’ A family member’s public post about the funeral arrangements becomes evidence in the damages phase. Counter: Privacy settings to maximum. No public posts about the case, the injuries, the feelings, the medical condition, or the legal strategy. The defense subscribes to every public feed, and the surveillance begins in week one.
Play 6: The government-witness isolation play. The FBI and NTSB investigators will interview survivors and witnesses at the scene, in the hospital, and at their homes. Those interviews become the official record. Anything the witness says to the NTSB is a sworn statement; anything the witness says to the FBI is potentially a federal statement. Counter: Do not give a statement to the NTSB or the FBI without counsel present. The NTSB party process and a lawyer’s presence protect the witness from making statements that will be used against them in the civil case. The federal investigators are not on your side. They are doing their job. Your job is to protect your own.
What Your Case May Be Worth
The honest answer to ‘what is this case worth’ is that no one — not us, not the defense, not the best trial lawyer in Texas — can give you a number on day three. The value of an aviation case is built from the damages categories, the coverage available, the percentage of fault, the quality of the proof, and the venue. Here is the framework.
For the family of the deceased: the case value is built from the four Texas wrongful-death categories (pecuniary loss, loss of companionship and society, mental anguish, loss of inheritance), the survival-action damages (pre-death conscious pain and suffering), the loss-of-consortium claim of the spouse (if applicable), and the punitive exposure via the survival action on clear-and-convincing evidence of gross negligence. The high-net-worth profile of NetJets passengers on a Mexico leisure return means the pecuniary-loss calculation can be substantial — earnable income, retirement contributions, stock options, expected inheritances. The mental-anguish and loss-of-companionship damages are real, not abstract; Texas juries in cases like this have returned verdicts in the eight-figure range.
For the five injured survivors: the case value is built from past and future medical expenses, lost earning capacity, the pain and suffering of the injuries and the treatment, the loss of enjoyment of life, the emotional distress, and (in the most serious cases) the lifetime cost of long-term care. A traumatic brain injury that looks ‘mild’ on a CT scan but produces lasting cognitive symptoms, a spinal injury that requires surgery, a burn injury that requires skin grafts and long-term rehabilitation, a post-traumatic stress disorder that follows the survivor for years — each of these has a damages number attached, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center’s lifetime-cost data is the kind of evidence a Texas jury understands.
For the motorist on Loop 20: the case value is built from a pure Texas-law negligence claim against NetJets, with all the standard Texas tort damages, no Montreal Convention cap, and access to NetJets’ substantial aviation liability coverage. If the motorist suffered a traumatic brain injury, a spinal injury, an amputation, or a fatal injury, this is a high-value case. If the motorist suffered whiplash and a damaged car, it is a different case — but it is still a case with aviation-grade insurance behind it.
The case-value range for a single death claim in this kind of case runs from the mid-seven figures to nine figures, depending on the decedent’s earning capacity, the family composition, the strength of the evidence on liability, and the venue. Aggregate exposure across the deceased, the five injured, and the motorist can easily exceed $100 million. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. What we can tell you is that NetJets/Berkshire’s insurance tower, their proven willingness to settle high-profile aviation cases, and the public-relations exposure of a brand tied to Warren Buffett’s name are exactly the kinds of factors that move a case from ‘file a complaint’ to ‘sit down and write a number.’
How a Case Like This Is Actually Built
The case is not built in the courtroom. It is built in the first ninety days, in the preservation letters, the NTSB party request, the expert engagements, the records demands, and the depositions. Here is how it actually moves, week by week.
Week one. The preservation letter goes out to NetJets’ General Counsel, to Textron Aviation’s Legal Department, and to Pratt & Whitney Canada’s Legal Department, demanding that all records be preserved and identifying the specific categories of evidence (maintenance, AD compliance, pilot records, dispatch records, MEL/CDL usage, prior incident reports, training records, duty-and-rest logs). The NTSB party request is filed under 49 CFR § 831.11. The FAA FOIA request is filed for the Laredo Tower and Houston TRACON/ARTCC voice recordings and radar data. The FlightRadar24 preservation demand is sent. The witness-identification and bystander-video preservation work begins. A Texas probate court is asked to appoint a personal representative for the deceased’s estate.
Weeks two through four. A Court-Recognized Pilot Expert (a Citation Latitude type-rated pilot) is engaged. A Citation Latitude maintenance expert (a former Cessna/Textron field-service engineer or independent A&P with IA) is engaged. An accident-reconstruction engineer is engaged. The NetJets pilot records, maintenance records, and dispatch records are demanded by formal letter. The struck vehicle on Loop 20 is identified and an inspection order is sought. The Texas Department of Public Safety crash report is requested. The Laredo Police Department witness statements are requested through the Texas Public Information Act.
Months two through six. The NTSB investigation proceeds. Our Technical Advisor is present at the wreckage examination, the engine tear-down, and the maintenance-record review. Our experts begin drafting their initial reports. The first set of civil-discovery requests (Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, Interrogatories) is drafted and held, pending the filing of the lawsuit. A venue decision is made: federal court in the Western District of Texas (San Antonio or Del Rio division) for federal-diversity jurisdiction, or state court in Travis County (Austin) for a Texas-resident decedent, or state court in Webb County (Laredo) for a Webb-County-resident family. The federal court is often the better forum in aviation cases because of the procedural rules, the discovery scope, and the relative insulation from local-county jury bias against out-of-state plaintiffs.
Months six through twelve. The lawsuit is filed. The NetJets Montreal-Convention forum challenge is filed. We oppose it with the Article 33(1)(c) destination argument. The trial court rules. The defense appeals if it loses. Discovery begins. NetJets produces its maintenance records under seal, the pilot records, the dispatch records, the training records. NetJets’ corporate representatives are deposed — the Director of Maintenance, the Chief Pilot, the Director of Safety, the Director of Operations. The depositions of the NetJets officials are where the case is won. The Safety Director explaining under oath why the company decided to release the aircraft on the morning of the flight — knowing what they knew about the mechanical issue, the prior incident reports, the AD compliance record, the crew rest — is the testimony that produces a settlement number.
Year one to two. Expert reports are exchanged. Depositions are completed. Mediation is attempted under the federal or state procedure. The Stowers demand is made on NetJets’ primary aviation liability carrier: produce policy limits and a willingness to settle within those limits, or face a Stowers bad-faith claim. Stowers is the Texas doctrine (Stowers v. Anthony, 1969) that holds an insurer liable for the full amount of an excess verdict when it fails to accept a settlement offer within policy limits that a reasonable insurer would have accepted. It is a uniquely Texan tool, and in a case against a Berkshire-owned defendant with a tier of aviation liability insurance, it is a pressure point the carrier’s coverage counsel will understand. The case resolves — in most aviation cases, on the eve of trial, after the depositions are done and the experts are locked in and the defense has seen the jury the plaintiff will present.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can file a wrongful death lawsuit in Texas after a plane crash?
Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.002, the wrongful-death action may be brought by the surviving spouse, the surviving children, the surviving parents, or the personal representative of the estate acting for their benefit. If you do not fit one of those categories, Texas does not give you a wrongful-death claim — though you may still have an independent claim for your own injuries, your own property damage, or your own loss of consortium. The estate must be opened in the Texas probate court where the decedent resided, and a personal representative must be appointed before the wrongful-death action is filed. We handle the probate-court appointment in the first week.
What is the Montreal Convention limit on a plane-crash death case?
The Montreal Convention of 1999 (codified in the United States at 49 U.S.C. § 40105) imposes strict liability on the air carrier for death or bodily injury to a passenger ‘on board the aircraft’ caused by an ‘accident’ during international carriage. The strict-liability floor is 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (approximately US$153,000 at current SDR-to-dollar rates, but verify the figure at the time of filing because the SDR-to-dollar conversion changes). Above that floor, the carrier is presumed liable, and the carrier can escape liability only by proving the death or injury was not caused by its negligence, or was caused solely by the negligence of a third party. The floor is a minimum, not a maximum. A case that settles at the floor, before the NTSB report, before discovery, and before expert review, surrenders the entire upside of the claim.
How long do I have to file a plane-crash lawsuit in Texas?
Two years under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. The two-year clock runs from the date of death for a wrongful-death claim, and from the date of injury for a personal-injury claim. The Montreal Convention imposes its own two-year limitation under Article 35, measured from the date of arrival at destination, the date the aircraft should have arrived, or the date the carriage stopped. The Texas and Convention deadlines are usually aligned, but the exact dates of accrual can differ — a passenger who was hospitalized for months before death has one Texas deadline and a different Convention deadline. This is technical ground where a wrong assumption can be fatal to the case. Call us before the calendar runs.
Can I sue Textron Aviation (the Cessna manufacturer) for a plane crash in Texas?
Yes, if the evidence supports it. Texas recognizes all three products-liability theories — manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn — under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 82.001 et seq. The Textron Aviation subsidiary that manufactured the Citation Latitude (the Cessna brand is part of Textron) and the engine manufacturer (Pratt & Whitney Canada) and the component subcontractors (Honeywell, Garmin, Rockwell Collins) are all potential defendants if the NTSB investigation identifies a design, manufacturing, or warning defect. Airworthiness Directive compliance, service-bulletin incorporation, and component-manufacturer records become the evidence. We add Textron and P&WC to the case from the first preservation letter.
What is NTSB party status and why does the 30-day window matter?
Under 49 CFR § 831.11, any party whose interests are not adequately represented may request to participate in the NTSB investigation as a designated party. The request must be filed within thirty days of the crash. A designated party has the right to receive factual reports, attend investigative hearings, have a Technical Advisor present at wreckage examinations, propose areas of investigation, and receive the final NTSB report. The party status is investigatory, not civil, but the factual reports and the Technical Advisor’s notes become foundational evidence in the civil case. The pilot, the operator (NetJets), the manufacturer, and the engine maker are virtually automatic parties; the family of the deceased and the surviving passengers are entitled to request party status. A request filed on day 31 will be denied as untimely. The window is the gate.
What if my car was hit by the plane on Loop 20?
If you were the motorist on Loop 20 whose car was struck by a piece of falling aircraft, your claim is a pure Texas-law negligence claim against NetJets, with all the standard Texas tort damages, and — critically — without the Montreal Convention’s strict-liability floor. The Convention applies to passengers ‘on board the aircraft,’ not to third parties on the ground. That makes your case a Texas car-accident-style case with aviation-grade insurance behind it. A TBI, a spinal injury, or a fatal injury makes this a high-value case. The EDR (event data recorder) in your car, the damage pattern, the witness video, and the Texas DPS crash report are the evidence. We move to preserve all of it in the first week. For more on the car-accident side of the case, see our guide on what a Texas car accident lawyer does — the doctrine that applies to your claim is the same doctrine that applies to a Loop 20 crash, even when an aircraft causes it.
What should I not say to the NetJets insurance adjuster?
Do not give a recorded statement to anyone from NetJets, its insurer, its third-party administrator, or any representative they direct you to — not on the phone, not at the hospital, not at the funeral home, not at your home. Do not estimate the value of your case. Do not describe the extent of your injuries. Do not describe your pain level, your sleep, your work capacity, or your emotional state. Do not agree to a medical examination arranged by the insurance company. Do not sign any document from the insurance company, including a ‘release of information’ form, a ‘statement of authorization,’ or a ‘medical authorization.’ The defense is recording every conversation from day one. The two-minute courtesy call is worth a six-figure settlement reduction to them — and they know it. For more on this, see our guide on what not to say to an insurance adjuster.
Can I get punitive damages from NetJets or Berkshire Hathaway in Texas?
Texas has abolished punitive damages within the wrongful-death statute itself, but punitive damages ARE available through a survival action under § 71.021, brought by the estate for the decedent’s pre-death conscious pain and suffering and any punitive exposure. To recover punitive damages in Texas, you must prove by clear and convincing evidence (the highest civil burden in Texas tort law) that the defendant acted with gross negligence, malice, or fraud. ‘Gross negligence’ means an act or omission involving an extreme degree of risk, conscious indifference to the rights or safety of others. A knowingly deferred maintenance decision, an ignored Airworthiness Directive, a fatigued-crew schedule, or a falsified maintenance logbook is exactly the kind of conduct the punitive-damages standard was built for. Punitive damages are not subject to a Texas statutory cap in aviation cases. A Texas jury can return a punitive verdict that is several multiples of the compensatory damages.
What is the Stowers doctrine and how does it help in an aviation case?
Stowers v. Anthony (Tex. 1969) is the Texas doctrine that holds an insurer liable to its insured for the full amount of an excess verdict when the insurer fails to accept a settlement offer within policy limits that a reasonable insurer would have accepted. In practical terms: if NetJets’ primary aviation liability carrier is offered a settlement at policy limits and refuses it, and a Texas jury returns a verdict above those limits, the carrier is on the hook for the entire verdict — not just the policy limit. Stowers is the leverage that makes a ‘no fee unless we win’ firm an asset to the insurance carrier’s own reinsurance: settling the case within limits protects the carrier from the Stowers exposure. In an aviation case against a Berkshire-owned defendant, Stowers is one of the pressure points that moves a number.
Do I need a lawyer for an aviation accident case in Texas?
Yes. Aviation cases are the most procedurally complex category of personal-injury litigation in the United States. The federal regulatory overlay (NTSB, FAA, 14 CFR Parts 43, 91, 135, 145), the international treaty (Montreal Convention), the Texas wrongful-death and survival statutes, the products-liability defendants (manufacturer, engine maker, component makers), the maintenance records, the pilot records, the FDR data, the ATC voice recordings, the party-status window, the forum challenge, the Stowers demand — every step has its own rules, its own deadlines, and its own pitfalls. A general personal-injury firm that does not routinely handle aviation cases will miss the preservation windows, the party-status window, the Montreal Convention forum question, and the cross-defendant strategy that makes the case work. The consultation is free, the call is confidential, and the number is 1-888-ATTY-911.
Speak With Attorney911
Ralph Manginello is the managing partner of Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, with 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal-court practice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and a record of $50M+ recovered for Texas families since 1998. Ralph is admitted to the State Bar of Texas and brings the same federal-court trial experience to aviation cases that he has brought to commercial-vehicle, refinery, and wrongful-death litigation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Lupe Peña is an associate attorney at the firm. Before joining the plaintiff side, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims just like yours. He now uses that playbook in reverse. Lupe is fully bilingual and serves Texas families in English and in Spanish. Learn more about Lupe and the cases he has handled since crossing to the plaintiff side.
The firm handles aviation cases alongside its commercial-vehicle, wrongful-death, brain-injury, and corporate-defendant practice — because the proof work in a major aviation case has more in common with the proof work in a fatal commercial-truck case than it does with the proof work in a routine car wreck. For more on the firm and its practice areas, see what we handle, or reach out directly at our contact page.
There is no fee unless we win. The consultation is free and confidential. We serve Texas families fully in Spanish — Hablamos Español. The call goes to a live person 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 1-888-ATTY-911.
This page is legal information, not legal advice for a specific case. The aviation and Texas-law framework described above is current as of the date of publication. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The consultation is free, and there is no fee unless we recover for you.