Cases

The Four Planes of 9/11

  • Locations: New York, NY; Washington, DC; and Shanksfield, PA
  • Date: September 11, 2001
  • Aircrafts: American Airlines 11, United Airlines 175, American Airlines 77, United Airlines 93
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Motley Rice launched a worldwide, private discovery effort to uncover the alleged negligence of airlines, security companies and airports in connection with the attacks. Our work led our investigators and attorneys to dozens of countries, and an astonishing collection of documents were recovered showing what we believed to be clear knowledge by the carriers and others of their security shortcomings regarding terrorist threats. For nearly a decade, our pursuit of this litigation enabled us to publicly expose evidence, gather answers for our clients and, hopefully, influence positive safety and security improvements in the aviation industry. Some of the evidence uncovered in our investigation is now publicly accessible in the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

September 20, 2011

Case Update:  9/11 Case Settles: final wrongful death lawsuit reaches resolution

On Sept. 19, 2011, the Bavis family reached an agreement with United Airlines and Huntleigh USA, bringing to an end nearly a decade of wrongful death litigation in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bavis v. United Airlines Corporation et al., was filed by the family of Mark Bavis, a passenger on United Flight 175, and claimed that the defendants were liable for airport security checkpoint failures, poor training, faulty cockpit doors and failure by the airline industry to acknowledge and adequately respond to government warnings about terrorist threats.

In re September 11 Litigation and Bavis v. United Airlines, Inc

At the request of victims’ families and survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our attorneys initiated legal action against airlines and security companies in In re September 11 Litigation, representing 56 of the 96 families that opted out of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund in hopes of gaining greater answers, accountability and recourse through consolidated actions against the airlines and security companies responsible for the hijacked planes used in the 9/11 attacks.

The resulting settlements shattered a settlement matrix developed and utilized for decades.

The family of Mark Bavis, a passenger killed on board United Airlines Flight 175, had the last remaining case, Bavis v. United Airlines, in the litigation against United Airlines and other defendants. The family claimed that United Airlines and the other defendants were liable for airport security checkpoint failures, poor training, faulty cockpit doors and failure by the airline industry to acknowledge and adequately respond to government warnings about terrorist threats.

After filing a 100-page response with 127 exhibits, the family was able to put these previously protected documents into the public discourse. They reached a settlement agreement in September 2011, bringing an end to nearly a decade of wrongful death litigation in connection with the 9/11 attacks.

According to the Bavis family, “We are thankful to have had a law firm like Motley Rice that was willing to stand by us and fight for the truth.”**

This litigation was a massive investigation into the alleged airline and aviation security failures of 9/11, and helped provide public access to evidence gathered through the litigation with its inclusion in the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

The pain and suffering caused on 9/11 were felt by all the families who lost loved ones. Through their lawsuits, the Bavis family and other victims’ families were able to stand on equal footing with the airlines and security companies, ask the questions that were important to each of them, get the answers they sought, demand accountability for wrongful behavior, shed public light on the issues involved and ultimately sought positive change in the aviation industry and national security.

See more Aviation >

**This is an unpaid testimonial. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The results achieved for one client in one matter do not guarantee, warrant or predict that similar results can be obtained for other clients.