A New Jersey appellate court has upheld several pre-trial rulings in a product liability case related to a helicopter crash that resulted in the death of musician Troy Lee Gentry. The court's decision, issued on November 10, 2026, affirms the trial court's decisions regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and the granting of summary judgment to one of the defendants, Avco Corporation. This ruling affects the plaintiffs, Angela K. Gentry and Sheila Robinson, who sought to hold various parties accountable for the crash.

The case stems from a tragic helicopter accident that occurred on September 8, 2017, in Medford, New Jersey. Gentry, a member of the country music duo Montgomery Gentry, died when the helicopter he was riding in crashed shortly after takeoff. The pilot, who had limited flying experience, reported engine issues during the flight. Despite attempts to troubleshoot the problem, the helicopter ultimately crashed, killing both Gentry and the pilot.

The plaintiffs, Angela K. Gentry, individually and as the executrix of Troy Lee Gentry's estate, and Sheila Robinson, as the administrator of the estate of James Evan Robinson, filed lawsuits against multiple defendants, including Herlihy Helicopters, Inc., Avco Corporation, and AVStar Fuel Systems, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that a defective carburetor and throttle control contributed to the crash. The case was consolidated with another lawsuit related to the same accident.

The legal dispute escalated as the parties filed various motions, including motions to limit or exclude expert testimony. Avco Corporation sought to exclude the testimony of several expert witnesses retained by the plaintiffs, arguing that their opinions lacked a solid scientific basis and were speculative. The trial judge conducted hearings to evaluate the admissibility of the expert testimony, which ultimately led to the exclusion of certain opinions from the plaintiffs’ experts.

The court ruled that the testimony of plaintiff's aviation accident investigator, Donald Sommer, would be partially limited. The judge determined that Sommer's assertions regarding a history of problems with HA-6 model carburetors were speculative and lacked sufficient factual support. The judge stated, "Sommer's expert reports do not provide a factual basis for his opinion that HA-6 carburetors have a 'long history of problems in service.'" This decision was based on the net opinion rule, which requires experts to provide a solid factual foundation for their conclusions.

Additionally, the court affirmed the trial judge's decision to grant summary judgment to Avco Corporation, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the company. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Avco's actions were a direct cause of the helicopter crash. This ruling means that Avco will not be held liable for the accident.

The appellate court's ruling has significant implications for the plaintiffs, who now face a more challenging path in their pursuit of justice for the deaths of Gentry and Robinson. The decision underscores the importance of presenting reliable expert testimony in product liability cases, as courts are vigilant in scrutinizing the qualifications and methodologies of expert witnesses.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiffs may need to reassess their legal strategy moving forward. The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving expert testimony in New Jersey, emphasizing the need for a strong evidentiary basis when making claims in product liability lawsuits.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear if the plaintiffs will seek to appeal the court's decision to a higher court. The court filing did not provide information on whether an appeal is planned or if there are any related cases pending. The outcome of this case could have lasting effects on the legal landscape surrounding aviation accidents and product liability claims.