Frequently Asked Questions

Although the final report of the official investigation has been delayed, sufficient information is now available to support several preliminary conclusions.

The flight suffered a bird strike during its approach to landing, which damaged both engines. For unknown reasons, the pilots evidently shut off the less damaged left engine.

This Boeing 737-800 NG airplane immediately experienced cascading failures in its electric and hydraulic systems. The aircraft was built using outdated 1960s technology that failed. The airplane experienced asymmetrical thrust. Pilot throttle commands may have been ineffective. Technical failures may have led the pilots to shut down the wrong engine. Nearly all of the systems needed for a safe landing failed: the landing gear, flaps, slats, ailerons, and reverse thrusters did not work properly. These safety systems are specifically intended to assist the pilots in landing and bringing the airplane to a safe stop after a bird strike.

Despite all these technical failures, the pilots remarkably managed to execute a go-around, return to the airport, and correctly line the airplane up with the runway. However, without assistance from those safety systems, the airplane overshot the start of the runway, touching down too fast and too far down the runway where it began sliding on its belly. With ineffective reverse thrusters, no brakes, and no ailerons, the pilots could not stop the airplane. It overshot the runway and collided with a concrete-reinforced dirt mound supporting nonfrangible localizer antennas. The airplane exploded on impact, causing the death of all but two of the 181 human beings onboard.

The truth is that it took the combination of all these errors to produce this air crash. Laws of both the U.S. and Korea are designed to compare and weigh the severity of fault on the part of each defendant whose actions contributed to this air crash.

First and foremost, if Boeing’s safety systems had functioned as intended, the flight would have landed safely and come to a safe stop on the runway, well before the deadly berm with no one hurt. In our professional opinion, Boeing must bear the greatest responsibility for this accident. Its culpability was the most egregious. Boeing had the most time, the most money, and the highest level of expertise available. Its reliance on outdated technology for more than 50 years, is inexcusable. Boeing ought to have corrected the deficiencies in its technology, especially in light of the fact that it was aware of the problem well before this air crash occurred.

Next, if Muan Airport’s bird mitigation team had managed to chase away the birds before the flight attempted to land, there never would have been a bird strike. The landing would have been normal and safe.

However, in our professional opinion, the second most egregious error was the construction of the concrete-reinforced berm supporting nonfrangible localizer antennas. The airport had several years, adequate funding, and expert advice, yet it ignored that advice when building and improving the localizer installation.. If the airport had constructed a proper support with frangible localizer antennas, the airplane would most likely have not exploded. There may have been injuries, but most, if not all, of the passengers would have survived.

Finally, if proven that in the intense pressure of the moment, the pilots mistakenly shut down the wrong engine, Jeju Air must bear a relatively minor share of fault. They were in an emergency situation without the assistance of most of the airplane’s safety systems, with only seconds to decide, and all without the immediate advice of anyone. We think they should bear only a small portion of the comparative fault.

We may modify our opinions when the final report is published and after we have received our U.S. experts’ final reports. However, at this moment, we estimate that a jury will likely apportion comparative fault approximately as follows: Boeing, 60%; Muan Airport, 35%; and Jeju Air, 5%.

Yes. There is no question but that all bereaved families can file suit in the U.S. Boeing is a U.S. corporation. The crash airplane was designed, manufactured, sold, and delivered in the State of Washington. Boeing was headquartered in the State of Illinois at that time. Boeing had relocated its headquarters to the State of Virginia by the time the air crash occurred.

Although all three of these states have jurisdiction over Boeing, our MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL has assigned all cases to Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington in Seattle. He will hear all Jeju Flight 2216 air crash passenger cases, regardless of where or when they may be initially filed.

An important related question is whether the case will stay in the U.S. Under the doctrine of Forum Nonconveniens (FNC) the U.S. judge can decide to transfer the case to be heard by the Korean courts.

It is widely known that the amount of compensation awarded in the U.S. is far higher than in Korea. Boeing will make a maximum effort to convince our judge to transfer the case against it to Korea. We think the judge will most likely deny Boeing’s FNC motion. A decision on the motion is expected to be rendered by early November of this year.

All of these defendants must be sued in Korea. No other country has jurisdiction over these entities with the very limited exception of the Thai citizens who may have purchased their tickets there or may have been permanently residing in another country. Such other country may have jurisdiction over only Jeju Air who is governed by the Montreal Convention of 1999 (MC99).

All Koreans who live in Korea and bought their tickets in Korea must file suit against Jeju Air as well as the other Korean defendants in the Korea courts.

Under Korean law, spouses, children, parents, and siblings all have rights to claim compensation. A Domestic Partner can also claim. If there are none of these present, then the next closest relative may file a lawsuit.

In the U.S., primary claimants are spouses, domestic partners and children of the decedent all have claims. Parents and siblings may claim in the absence of primary claimants. Otherwise, like Korea, if none of these family members are present, the next closet relative may claim.

It must also be noted that the U.S. Judge has the choice to apply Korean law on this issue. Thus, we are filing for all spouses, domestic partners, children, parents and siblings with the above understanding that the judge has choices to make in deciding who may maintain a claim.

All bereaved families need to be aware that the Montreal Convention of 1999 (MC99) imposes a two-year Statute of Limitations (SOL) dictating that all cases against Jeju Air must be filed in Korea by December 29, 2026.

Then, the U.S. judge may choose to apply either three-year SOLs as found in both Washington State and Korean law or two-year SOLs as found in both Virginia and Illinois law. While we believe Judge Robart will apply a three-year SOL, he certainly has the option to apply a two-year SOL. Those bereaved families who think it wise to wait to see the result of the FNC motion may be making a terrible mistake.

Anyone filing their cases against Boeing in the U.S. after December 29, 2026, will most likely face a Boeing motion to dismiss based on a two-year SOL. Boeing will argue that SOLs are intended to protect defendants from stale claims. It will point out that its headquarters were located in Chicago, Illinois, when the airplane was manufactured, sold, and delivered and that its headquarters had been relocated to Arlington, Virginia, by the time of the air crash.

In addition, our response to Boeing’s FNC motion must be filed on October 9, 2026. Accordingly, only lawsuits properly filed by October 2, 2026—one week before our response is due—will be included in the case before the FNC motion is decided.

Bereaved families who wait for the FNC ruling may be taking a serious and unnecessary risk. Our best advice is for every bereaved family to hire an experienced U.S. aviation lawyer no later than September 1, 2026. We welcome all to join with us in our effort to deliver full justice to all of you.

Yes. MC99 requires Jeju Air to pay air crash victims up to ₩296,976,360 on international flights without proof of fault. Only damages need be proven. The Republic of Korea is a signatory to this treaty. Unquestionably, MC99 applies to this accident.

Further, unless Jeju Air can prove it has no fault whatsoever, this treaty will compel Jeju Air to pay each family the full amount of their damages, which may be far more than the no-fault amount.

All U.S. aviation cases are consolidated before one federal judge to determine liability for the crash. This has already been done. All cases are before Judge Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. 

The first major issue is the FNC motion. If granted, the case against Boeing will be transferred to the Korean courts, where the amount of compensation is far lower than what is expected in the U.S.

Assuming the FNC motion is denied, the litigation will then move on to establish Boeing’s liability and determine how its fault compares with that of the Korean defendants. That verdict will apply to all bereaved families’ cases that were filed in the U.S. All victims benefit from a liability victory. 

After liability is resolved, the litigation moves to the damages stage, where each family's compensation is determined individually. Like Korea, each proper claimant within a bereaved family will receive an individual damages award.

The decedent’s age, health, education, occupation, income, and marital status, together with the number and ages of family members financially dependent on the decedent, are all factors considered.

We have retained a Korean CPA to assist you in assembling the documents necessary to establish your financial damages. His report will be followed by an American Ph.D. Economist who will prepare a final report and testify on your family’s behalf in our U.S. case.

Compensation is also awarded for the Decedent's pre-death fright and terror in the last moments before death.

To protect yourself and your family, here are guidelines you should follow:

• Do not sign legal documents without the advice of an experienced aviation attorney.

• Do not discuss details of your deceased loved one or your family with anyone other than your family, your doctors, or your lawyers.

• Preserve photos and records. Save all financial records, including income taxes, payroll and business records, bank accounts, real estate purchases, and investment records.

• Seek psychological or grief counseling.

• Start a diary or journal in which you record all your suffering—both physical and emotional.

• Seek professional legal advice from an experienced aviation law firm with a proven record of success

We have successfully represented more Korean victims of air disasters in both Korea and in the U.S. than any other law firm in the world.

Our firm’s mission remains unchanged for more than 75 years. Ever since our founding by FORMER SENATOR AND INSURANCE COMMISSIONER Karl Herrmann in 1950, our mission has been to champion the rights of people killed or injured in tragic accidents. We have a long, successful record in aviation litigation including extensive, successful experience against Boeing,

We are committed to maximum compensation for every family we represent.

For more than four decades, we have represented the families of victims in major aviation disasters throughout the world. They include:

• Korean Airlines flight KAL007 Shot down by a Soviet MIG over Sakhalin;

• Korean Air flight KE801 in Guam:

• China Airlines flight CA129, near Gimhae Airport;

• Air China flight CI611 over the Strait of Taiwan - against Boeing;

• National Test Pilot School, California;

• Asiana flight OZ214, San Francisco - against Boeing:

• Lion Air flight JT610, MAX cases - against Boeing;

• Ethiopian Air flight ET302, the second Boeing MAX disaster; and,

• Sriwijaya flight SJ182 - also against Boeing.

HERRMANN LAW GROUP has represented more than a thousand family members of hundreds of victims who died in air crashes. We have successfully represented clients against Boeing five times.

Experience has taught us that representing Koreans in a U.S. court is far more than just using an expert interpreter. You have to successfully educate Americans about Korean culture, family relationships, customs, business practices, and the dynamic Korean economy. In order to teach it, one has to first learn it themselves. Our learning never stops.