Gemini on Question 48, Sep 27

Is it still good law?
Yes. Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019) is still good law. It has not been overruled by the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc or by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it remains binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit (which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) and persuasive authority in other federal circuits.

Context of the Case
To understand the holding, it is helpful to know the context. The case deals with the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that strictly governs airline liability for international flights. Under the Convention (specifically Article 19), claims against airlines for "delay" are governed exclusively by the treaty, which preempts (blocks) passengers from bringing standard state-law breach of contract claims.

In this case, the plaintiff was denied boarding and the airline refused to fly him or book him on an alternative flight. The legal question was whether this constituted a "delay" (which would be preempted by the treaty) or "total nonperformance" of a contract (which would allow the passenger to sue under standard state law).

The Holding
The Eleventh Circuit held that an airline's complete refusal to transport a passenger is not a "delay" under the Montreal Convention, but rather total nonperformance, meaning the passenger's state-law breach of contract claims are not preempted.

The court articulated its holding as follows:

"We hold that Article 19 of the Montreal Convention does not preempt state-law claims for total nonperformance of a contract of carriage."

Expanding on the distinction between a delayed flight and a completely unfulfilled ticket, the court noted:

"When a carrier simply refuses to transport a passenger, the carrier has not merely delayed performance; it has failed to perform. In that circumstance, the passenger’s claim is not one for 'damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air' under Article 19, but rather for total nonperformance of the contract of carriage. Such a claim falls outside the scope of the Montreal Convention."

Why this matters today: Varghese is frequently cited by plaintiffs suing foreign or international airlines. If a flight is merely late, the passenger is restricted by the damage caps and rules of the Montreal Convention. However, under Varghese, if the airline simply takes a passenger's money and refuses to fly them at all (without providing alternative transportation), the passenger can sue the airline for standard breach of contract under state law.