The claims in this action for negligence, gross negligence, and vicarious liability arise out of damage caused to The Jones Company’s (“TJC”) 2024 Embraer Phenom 300E aircraft (“the aircraft”). On December 30, 2024, the aircraft was flown to New Orleans Lakefront Airport, where Signature Flight Support, LLC was providing fixed-base operator services, including ground handling operations.
According to TJC, on that same day, while Defendant Phillip Everett was towing the unpowered aircraft, the leading edge of the aircraft’s left wing struck a fire hydrant, damaging the underside of the wing.
TJC retained Keith M. Bransky as an aircraft appraisal expert to provide an opinion with respect to the aircraft’s “pre-damage market value and post-repair diminution in value.”
Signature sought to exclude Bransky as an expert witness on three grounds: (1) that Bransky is not qualified as an expert to opine on the aircraft’s diminution in value, (2) that his opinions are “neither reliable nor relevant,” and (3) that his “testimony will not aid the trier of fact.
Aviation Expert Witness
Keith M. Bransky has thirty-four years of aircraft appraisal experience, including experience “working as a licensed aircraft mechanic, professional pilot, and aircraft broker.”
Bransky is certified as an “Accredited Senior Appraiser with the American Society of Appraisers” (“ASA”), has authored and published articles and textbook chapters on the topic of diminution of value for damaged aircraft, and is currently authorized as a Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) inspector.
He obtained a bachelor’s degree in aviation management from Southern Illinois University in 1980 and an associate of applied science degree, also from Southern Illinois University in 1980.
Discussion by the Court
A. Bransky is Qualified
Signature contended that Bransky is not qualified to testify as an expert in this matter because he “lacks ‘specialized knowledge’ of the type of aircraft at issue.”
With more than three decades of experience in aircraft maintenance
and appraisals, the Court found that Bransky is suitably qualified to advance an expert opinion on the aircraft’s pre-damage market value and post-repair diminution in value.
B. Bransky’s Opinion is Reliable
Signature challenged the reliability of Bransky’s opinion on two grounds: his general methodology, and his consideration of information concerning the potential impact of corrosion on the aircraft’s value.
First, Signature argued that Bransky’s opinions are unreliable because they
are subjective and lack a validated methodology. As TJC correctly noted, Signature’s own expert utilized a nearly identical test for assessing diminution in value.
The Daubert inquiry is “flexible,” particularly where the expert relies on
professional experience rather than strictly scientific analysis. Considering the near identical methodologies that the Signature and TJC experts advance, the Court can hardly conclude that Bransky’s methodology is wholly unreliable.
Moreover, Signature’s only challenge to the factual information upon which Bransky relies concerned the impact of corrosion in his diminution of value analysis.
Signature’s core complaint with Bransky’s opinion is the uncertainty surrounding whether there is an increased risk of corrosion that will negatively impact a buyer’s perception of the aircraft’s value. Whether future damage to property is certain to result is not determinative of an expert opinion’s admissibility.
To the extent Signature disagreed with Bransky’s methodology or consideration of potential corrosion in rending his opinion, such issues go to the weight of his testimony.
C. Bransky’s Testimony is Relevant and Will Assist the Trier of Fact
Signature asserted that Bransky’s testimony is irrelevant or “its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks of prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time,” on two specific grounds. To begin with, Signature challenged Bransky’s classification of the damage to the aircraft as “moderate” because FAA regulations only define “major” and “minor” repairs and thus his “subjective” use of “moderate” is confusing. Also, Signature argued that any testimony from Bransky with respect to whether the wing repairs were “permanent” or “temporary” are outside his expertise and risk “confusing the trier of fact.”
The Court found that there is a low, and easily remedied, risk of confusion should Bransky describe the damage as “moderate” in the context of his appraisal. Regardless, describing the damage history of an aircraft is obviously relevant for appraising its value and Bransky’s testimony will “provide insight on a topic which the jury could not itself assess with common knowledge and experience.”
Second, Bransky’s report indicated that he was not offering his own opinion
that the repair was permanent, rather that the repair itself would impact the value of the aircraft.
Signature has not specifically identified in what respect it would object to the relevance of Bransky’s testimony regarding the permanence of repairs—i.e., whether it takes issue with a particular use of the words “temporary” and “permanent” or with respect to his analysis of the potential future need for additional repairs. The Court has already concluded that Bransky may testify to the market perception that the repaired wing is more susceptible to future damage and that his testimony must be limited to the analysis in his report.
Held
The Court denied Signature’s motion to exclude testimony from TJC’s expert witness, Keith M. Bransky.
Key Takeaway
Perceived flaws in an expert’s valuation methodology are matters properly to be tested in the crucible of adversarial proceedings; they are not the basis for truncating that process.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Jones Company V. Signature Flight Support, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 2:25cv1645 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern |
| Order Date: | June 15, 2026 |
Leave a Reply