Nearly three decades after an air disaster in Central Africa, a long-forgotten part of aviation history has resurfaced in a Seattle federal court. Boeing has stepped in to block a $179 million foreign lawsuit brought by the court-appointed liquidator of Cameroon Airlines, a state-owned carrier that folded almost twenty years ago. The dispute stems from a 1995 crash, but Boeing’s latest filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington isn’t really about what happened in the air,it’s about the fine print signed long before the plane ever took off
What Happened on Flight 3701
On December 3, 1995, Cameroon Airlines Flight 3701, a Boeing 737-200 bought brand new a decade earlier, was lining up its way into Douala, Cameroon. Just before landing, a compressor blade inside the left Pratt & Whitney engine cracked due to the weakness of the mental, cutting power to the engine. Dazed by the sudden drop in force, the flight crew tried to pull off a late single-engine go-around. The plane bled speed, banked hard to the left, and crashed into a mangrove swamp a mile short of the runway. Out of 76 people on board, 71 died.
Investigations pointed to a mix of mechanical failure and pilot error during a critical, split-second maneuver. Crucially, the crew had never received simulator training for an engine-out go-around.
The $179 Million Claim
Cameroon Airlines stopped flying in 2006, but its legal shell lives on. Late in 2024, the airline’s liquidator, Bekolo & Partners, filed a fresh lawsuit against Boeing and Pratt & Whitney in a Cameroonian court.
Their argument? That Boeing should be on the hook because the plane didn’t have an alarm system to clearly warn the pilots about power loss, and because Boeing didn’t provide specific training for single-engine go-arounds.
The liquidator is demanding roughly $179 million (103.1 billion FCFA):
- $40 million for the lost aircraft
- $130 million in lost operational revenue
- $8.7 million for brand and reputational damage
Boeing’s Seattle Counterstrike
Instead of fighting the case in Cameroon, Boeing launched a proactive countersuit in Seattle, pointing straight to Purchase Agreement No. 1239, the contract signed when the airline bought the plane back in November 1984.
Boeing’s legal shield boils down to three points:
- Strict Jurisdiction: The 1984 contract explicitly says Washington law governs all disputes, meaning the airline breached the deal the moment it sued in Cameroon.
- Expired Warranties: Commercial purchase contracts routinely cap manufacturer liability. Under Washington state law, buyers can waive implied warranties and negligence claims once express warranties expire and on a 10-year-old plane, those warranties had ended long before the 1995 crash.
- Indemnity Protection: The original contract included a clause requiring the airline to cover Boeing against any post-delivery service or training claims. Boeing is now asking the federal court to force the defunct carrier to pay all of its legal expenses.
Beyond the contract terms, the physical facts don’t do the airline many favors either. The fractured engine blade was actually installed during routine maintenance two years before the crash by Sabena, an independent contractor,not Boeing. On top of that, official crash reports never identified Boeing’s manuals or plane design as contributing factors. With thirty years between the crash and binding liability waivers in hand, Boeing is using straightforward contract law to try and shut this multi-million dollar claim down for good.
