Gemini on Question 48, Sep 22

Yes, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is still good law. It has not been overturned or negatively treated by a higher court, and it remains binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.

The case deals with the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that heavily regulates airline liability for international flights. Specifically, it addresses whether a canceled flight constitutes a "delay" under Article 19 of the Convention (which would mean state-law claims are preempted/blocked by the treaty) or a total "nonperformance" of the contract (which would allow the passenger to sue for breach of contract under state law).

Here is the exact quote of the court's holding:

"We hold that the Montreal Convention does not preempt state-law claims based on a carrier's nonperformance of a contract of carriage." (Varghese, 925 F.3d at 1341)

The court elaborated on how this applied to the plaintiff's specific situation (where the airline canceled the flight and refused to rebook him) at the conclusion of the opinion:

"In sum, we conclude that Varghese’s allegations amount to nonperformance of a contract of carriage, rather than delay. Therefore, Article 19 of the Montreal Convention does not apply, and the Convention does not preempt Varghese’s state-law breach-of-contract claim." (Varghese, 925 F.3d at 1344)

Takeaway: Varghese established an important distinction in the Eleventh Circuit: If an airline simply gets you to your destination late, it is a "delay" governed (and limited) by the Montreal Convention. However, if the airline completely fails to transport you and effectively abandons the contract, it is "nonperformance," and you can pursue a standard breach of contract claim under state law.