The defendant federal regulator brought a motion under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of a question of law that it owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff insurers in relation to regulatory oversight of an airport.
The action arose from an aircraft runway overrun where the plaintiffs alleged negligence in runway design and construction, ownership of the airport, and regulatory certification of the airport despite known safety deficiencies.
The court held that although existing jurisprudence suggests regulators generally do not owe private law duties of care for policy‑based regulatory decisions, it was not plain and obvious that special circumstances could not give rise to such a duty in the pleaded factual context.
Issues relating to the statutory framework, the characterization of certification decisions as policy or operational, and the factual circumstances required a full evidentiary record.
The motion to strike the regulatory negligence allegations and related pleadings was therefore dismissed.