Gemini on Question 48, Sep 11

Yes, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is still good law. As of my current knowledge, it has not been overturned, abrogated, or modified by the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc or by the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains binding precedent within the Eleventh Circuit (which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) and is highly persuasive authority in other federal courts regarding international aviation law.

Context of the Case

The case involved passengers (the Vargheses) suing China Southern Airlines over a heavily delayed international flight. They attempted to bring state-law claims (like breach of contract and negligence) against the airline. They argued that because the airline acted "recklessly" or with "intent," an exception in the Montreal Convention (Article 22(5)) allowed them to bypass the treaty's strict rules and bring state-law claims.

The Holding

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' argument, ruling on the interplay between Article 29 (which makes the Convention the exclusive remedy for passenger delays) and Article 22(5) (which lifts the monetary cap on damages if the airline acts recklessly or intentionally).

The court held that alleging reckless or intentional conduct does not destroy the treaty's preemption of state-law claims; it only removes the financial cap on damages.

The court's holding is captured in these key quotes from the opinion:

"We hold that Article 22(5) does not operate as an exception to the preemptive effect of Article 29. By its plain language, Article 22(5) simply removes the liability limits set forth in the Convention when a carrier has acted with intent or recklessness."

The court further concluded:

"Because the Vargheses' claims fall within the substantive scope of the Montreal Convention, the Convention provides the exclusive cause of action and preempts their state-law claims."

In summary: Varghese firmly establishes in the Eleventh Circuit that the Montreal Convention completely preempts state-law claims for damages arising from international flight delays (or injuries/baggage issues), and plaintiffs cannot plead around this preemption by accusing the airline of intentional or reckless misconduct.

(Disclaimer: While this case is currently good law, attorneys should always run a quick Shepard's or KeyCite check on legal databases like LexisNexis or Westlaw to ensure no very recent district or circuit decisions have distinguished or narrowed the ruling based on specific facts.)