Gemini on Question 48, Sep 23

Yes, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is still good law. It has not been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor has it been overruled en banc by the Eleventh Circuit. It remains binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) and serves as highly persuasive authority in other federal circuits regarding the preemptive scope of the Montreal Convention on international air travel.

Context of the Holding

To understand the holding, it helps to know the context: The plaintiff (Varghese) was stuck in a windowless room for over a day due to a delayed international flight and sued the airline under Florida state law for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The legal issue was whether the Montreal Convention (an international treaty governing international air travel) preempts state-law claims for flight delays, even if the Convention itself does not provide a remedy for the specific injury (the Convention does not allow recovery for emotional distress without physical injury).

The Holding

The Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of the airline, holding that the Montreal Convention provides the exclusive remedy for claims falling under its scope, thereby completely preempting state-law claims.

Here are the direct quotes establishing the court's holding:

From the Court's Introduction (925 F.3d at 1341):

"We hold that the Montreal Convention preempts Varghese's state-law claims."

From the Court's Analysis and Conclusion on Preemption (925 F.3d at 1350–1351):

"Article 29’s exclusivity dictates that a passenger’s claims arising out of delayed carriage must be brought under the Convention or not at all. We therefore conclude that the Montreal Convention precludes Varghese’s state-law claims."

On the specific issue of whether preemption applies even when the plaintiff is left without a remedy (925 F.3d at 1349):

"Because Varghese's claims fall within the scope of the Convention, he may only recover if the Convention provides a remedy. ... [E]ven if a passenger’s injuries fall within the scope of the Convention, the passenger may not recover if the Convention does not provide a remedy. In such cases, the Convention’s exclusivity still preempts the passenger’s state-law claims."

Summary of the Rule of Law Established:
If a claim arises from an international flight delay (governed by Article 19 of the Montreal Convention), Article 29 of the Convention makes it the exclusive mechanism for seeking damages. Consequently, passengers cannot bypass the Convention by bringing state-law tort or contract claims, even if the Convention leaves them with no legal remedy.