Gemini on Question 48, Sep 29

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 Supreme Court or overruled by the Eleventh Circuit en banc, and it remains a leading precedent regarding the scope of the Montreal Convention in federal aviation law.

Brief Context

To provide context for the holding, the case involved a passenger (Varghese) who was completely denied boarding by China Southern Airlines because the airline mistakenly believed he lacked the proper visa to transit through China. Varghese sued under state law for breach of contract and negligence. The airline argued that the Montreal Convention—an international treaty that exclusively governs and limits liability for "delay" in international air travel—preempted his state-law claims.

The Holding

The Eleventh Circuit had to decide whether an airline's complete refusal to let a passenger fly constitutes a "delay" under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (which would preempt state law and limit the airline's liability) or a complete "nonperformance" of the contract (which falls outside the treaty and allows the passenger to sue under state law).

The Court sided with the passenger. The holding is that an airline's complete refusal to transport a passenger is "nonperformance," not a "delay," and therefore the Montreal Convention does not preempt state-law claims arising from that refusal.

Quotes from the Decision

The Court articulated its holding and the distinction between delay and nonperformance through the following key passages:

The primary holding:

"We hold that 'delay' in Article 19 of the Montreal Convention does not encompass complete nonperformance of a contract of carriage."

Applying the holding to the facts of the case:

"Because China Southern’s refusal to fly Varghese was a complete nonperformance of its contract with him, rather than a delay in his transportation, the Montreal Convention does not preempt his state-law claims."

Explaining the legal distinction:

"When a carrier simply refuses to transport a passenger on a flight, and never offers to place the passenger on a later flight, the carrier has not delayed the passenger’s transportation; it has failed to perform its contractual obligation altogether."