On October 31, 2025, a devastating aviation disaster shocked the world. A passenger plane operated by South Korean airline Jeju Air crashed while attempting to land near Jeju Airport during an international flight. On board were citizens of South Korea, Thailand, Japan, the Philippines, and other countries. Tragically, all passengers and crew members died.

At the time of publication, the official cause of the plane crash has not yet been confirmed. However, there is reason to believe that the tragedy may have been caused by a technical malfunction of the aircraft. This raises questions regarding Jeju Air’s liability as the operator, and potentially the manufacturer’s responsibility if technical defects are confirmed.

South Korean Authorities’ Version: Bird Strike

A preliminary report by South Korean aviation authorities points to a bird strike as the cause. According to the report, one or more birds may have entered the engine during approach, allegedly resulting in loss of control.

However, aviation experts question the reliability of this version. Bird strikes are not uncommon and are taken into account in the certification of all modern aircraft. Aircraft must be capable of withstanding such incidents without catastrophic failure. The suggestion that a bird strike caused landing gear failure and disruption of critical flight systems appears questionable.

This casts doubt on the official explanation and suggests possible structural flaws or operational errors, calling for an independent technical investigation. It may also expand the circle of liable parties, including the aircraft manufacturer.

Jeju Air’s Liability – Application of the Montreal Convention

As the Jeju Air flight involved was an international route, the Montreal Convention of 1999 applies. This international treaty, ratified by most countries, sets uniform rules for compensation in cases of death or injury of passengers, as well as for baggage loss and flight delays.

The Convention outlines a two-tier liability system for air carriers:

1. Strict (no-fault) liability

The airline is liable regardless of fault, up to 128,821 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) — approximately $170,000 USD per deceased passenger. However, this amount is not paid automatically. The family must prove the actual financial loss, such as:

• Loss of primary household income;
• Funeral expenses;
• Loss of financial support.

If a court finds the verified damage to be $100,000, the payout will be limited to that amount — not the full SDR limit.

2. Unlimited (additional) liability

If damages exceed the SDR limit, families have the right to claim full compensation, but only if they prove fault on the part of the airline. This includes evidence that:

• The airline was grossly negligent;
• There were intentional acts;
• Safety obligations were breached.

In such cases, the compensation amount is not capped. However, the airline retains the right to defend itself by proving it was not at fault for the crash.

Moral Damages Compensation

The Montreal Convention does not provide for moral damages compensation. However, national laws of the country where the lawsuit is filed may allow it.

For instance:

• Thailand and South Korea permit non-material damage claims;
• However, the amounts awarded in these jurisdictions are typically symbolic and modest.

Thus, the right to moral compensation for pain, grief, and emotional suffering depends on the chosen jurisdiction.

Where to File a Claim Against the Airline

The Montreal Convention allows victims to choose from six jurisdictions, which is crucial since compensation amounts, legal procedures, and rights vary significantly by country:

1. Country of airline registration – in this case, South Korea;
2. Place of the airline’s principal place of business;
3. Country where the ticket was purchased (e.g., Thailand);
4. Departure location;
5. Destination location;
6. Country of the passenger’s permanent residence — if the passenger had a substantial connection with the carrier.

Why Jurisdiction Matters

Selecting the right jurisdiction can impact:

• The amount of compensation — EU and U.S. courts often award higher sums;
• Eligibility for moral damages — allowed in countries like the U.S. and France;
• Legal costs and aid — some jurisdictions offer free legal support;
• Access to a fair trial — jury trials are possible in U.S. courts, often leading to larger awards.

Liability of the Aircraft Manufacturer

The nature of the Jeju Air crash suggests a potential technical failure of the aircraft. If investigation proves that critical systems failed due to design or manufacturing defects, families may file a separate claim against the manufacturer.

Such lawsuits are typically filed under tort law, independent of the Montreal Convention’s compensation caps. This means much higher damages may be awarded, especially when a direct link between the defect and the crash is proven.

Global legal practice confirms that such claims are regularly filed in U.S., French, and UK courts, especially where the manufacturer is a Western company and the aircraft was delivered under an international contract.

Why You Shouldn’t Wait for the Investigation to End

Official investigations can take years — analyzing black boxes, technical records, radar data, etc. But statutes of limitation are strictly defined: typically 2 to 3 years from the date of the crash. Missing the deadline can mean losing the right to claim compensation, even if fault is later proven.

Therefore, families should not wait for the final report. Filing a lawsuit in a timely manner helps protect legal rights, and additional evidence can be submitted later as it becomes available.

Why Filing in U.S. Court Is the Most Effective Strategy

International legal practice shows that filing in U.S. courts is the most effective strategy in aviation crash cases — especially if the aircraft was built by an American company like Boeing.

Advantages of filing in the U.S. include:

• Independent judiciary with strong protection of victims’ rights;
• Jury trials, often resulting in higher compensation;
• Possibility of claiming moral and punitive damages;
• High likelihood of pre-trial settlement due to reputational risks for companies.

Thus, choosing U.S. jurisdiction can help victims achieve maximum compensation and full accountability.

Holding All Liable Parties Accountable

A strong legal position in a U.S. lawsuit requires naming all potentially responsible parties:

• Jeju Air as the operator;
• The aircraft manufacturer;
• The insurance company covering the airline’s liability.

Most airlines are covered by multimillion-dollar insurance policies, often backed by international reinsurers. These reinsurers usually prefer settlement, especially when facing the unpredictability of U.S. jury trials and the risk of large awards.

DTK Partners’ Experience

DTK Partners’ attorneys have successfully handled aviation disaster cases against airlines, manufacturers, and insurers.

Our record includes:

• Winning lawsuits against Boeing, Airbus, Sukhoi, ATR and others;
• Representing families of victims from crashes in Russia, the CIS, Asia, and the Middle East;
• Filing claims in the U.S. and EU courts;
• Working with international aviation experts and legal professionals.

We know how to manage complex international litigation, build strong evidence, and deliver results for families seeking justice.