Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airlines Systems (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2008). In his state court complaint, the passenger claimed that (i) the airline’s delay of a certain international flight in March 2008 caused him to miss his connecting flight, and (ii) the airline refused to refund his ticket for an international flight scheduled for June 2006, even though he had called on the day of departure to advise the airline that he was sick and thus unable to travel that day.
The airline removed the case to federal court, contending that the Montreal Convention provided, in Article 19, the exclusive cause of action for the passenger’s delay claim, thus preempting his state law breach of contract claim for delay and giving the court original jurisdiction over such claim, and that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over the passenger’s state law breach of contract refund claim. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court.
The court sided with the passenger. Citing a recent Seventh Circuit case, the court held that because the Montreal Convention’s conditions and limits, including Article 19, only operate as affirmative defenses to a passenger’s claims, such provisions do not provide a basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to state court.
Note: In making its ruling, the court acknowledged that in Knowlton v. American Airlines, Inc., which is discussed here, the Maryland federal district court took a much broader view of Montreal Convention preemption.