Quantcast

U.S. district court unseals action that criticizes selling faulty engines to military

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Sunday, December 22, 2024

U.S. district court unseals action that criticizes selling faulty engines to military

Lawsuits
Shutterstock 146730020

shutterstock.com

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut unsealed documents Aug. 15 in a lawsuit that accuses United Technologies Corp. (UTC) and its subsidiary Pratt & Whitney of selling millions of dollars of faulty fighter jet engines to the U.S. military.

The court’s decision to unseal the documents came just after the U.S. government declined to intervene. It also ordered Peter J. Bonzani Jr.’s complaint, which he filed on behalf of the United States, be served to the defendants. While the court declined to intervene, it referred the court to 31 U.S.C, which gives Bonzani permission to continue to pursue legal action for the U.S.

In his complaint, Bonzani, a former employee of the defendants, alleges UTC and Pratt & Whitney, “knowingly and/or recklessly used a flawed manufacturing process which resulted in the creation of defective engine parts for U.S. Air Force fighter jets,” putting U.S. military pilots in danger of engine failure. He also said they intentionally used faulty spray equipment and incorrect testing methods in order to manipulate results for engine parts of the F119 engine. That part is used in the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. 

The suit says UTC & P&W provided falsified claims with manipulated reports, so they could get their claims paid for. Bonzani added that UTC and P&W suspended and then fired him after he reported their alleged actions.

Bonzani sued for violations of the False Claims Act concerning presentation of false claims, alleging UTC and P&W made claims for payments while being aware they sold the U.S. government faulty equipment. 

The U.S. government continued to make payments, not knowing the equipment could malfunction. Bonzani also sued for violations of the False Claim Act concerning false statements and he sued for retaliation and a violation of 31 U.S.C. for the defendants firing him after he reported their alleged activity.  

More News