Lavergne v. ATIS CORP.
767 F. Supp. 2d 301, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20681, 2011 WL 723393 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Montreal Convention, like its predecessor the Warsaw Convention, applies only to international carriage performed by an 'air transport undertaking,' which is an entity engaged in the business of air transport, and does not extend to gratuitous carriage on a private, non-commercial flight.
Facts:
- ATIS Corporation ('ATIS') owned aircraft which it operated for personal and private use under Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
- ATIS was not certified under Part 135 to transport passengers for hire and had never engaged in the business of transporting passengers for payment.
- On February 8, 2009, Luis Lavergne, Luis Alberto Romero-Encarnacion, Alberto Bachman, and Karen Pizarro-Landrau were passengers on an ATIS aircraft.
- The flight was from Casa de Campo International Airport in the Dominican Republic to an airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
- The passengers did not pay for the flight; they were transported gratuitously as a favor for a friend of the individuals who controlled ATIS.
- During the flight, the aircraft crashed due to severe weather, resulting in the death of all passengers.
Procedural Posture:
- Relatives of the deceased passengers ('Plaintiffs') filed suit against ATIS Corporation ('ATIS') and its insurer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, asserting claims under the Montreal Convention.
- ATIS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Montreal Convention was inapplicable.
- Separate lawsuits filed by different families were consolidated by the court due to common issues of law and fact.
- The court granted Plaintiffs' request for a period of discovery limited to the jurisdictional question of whether ATIS was a commercial carrier.
- After discovery, the court held an Evidentiary Hearing to resolve factual disputes relevant to the jurisdictional motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Montreal Convention apply to a gratuitous, private international flight operated by a corporation that owns aircraft for personal use and is not engaged in the business of transporting passengers for hire?
Opinions:
Majority - Salvador E. Casellas
No, the Montreal Convention does not apply to a gratuitous, private international flight operated by a corporation not engaged in the business of air transport. The court reasoned that Article 1(1) of the Montreal Convention, which applies to gratuitous carriage by an 'air transport undertaking,' is substantively identical to the parallel provision in the predecessor Warsaw Convention, which used the term 'air transport enterprise.' By analyzing the original French text and English dictionary definitions, the court concluded that 'undertaking' and 'enterprise' are synonyms for a business. Therefore, the change in terminology did not expand the Convention's scope to cover non-commercial flights. Citing precedent from the Fifth Circuit interpreting the Warsaw Convention, the court held that the provision's purpose is to exclude 'casual, isolated flights when a free ride is afforded by an owner not engaged in the business... of flying.' Because ATIS operated its aircraft for personal use, was not certified as a commercial carrier, and had never transported passengers for hire, it was not an 'air transport undertaking' at the time of the accident, making the Montreal Convention inapplicable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the Montreal Convention's scope is limited to commercial aviation, just like the Warsaw Convention it replaced. It establishes that the terminological shift from 'enterprise' to 'undertaking' did not substantively expand the treaty's reach to private, non-commercial international flights. The ruling solidifies the distinction between commercial carriers subject to the international treaty's liability scheme and private operators who remain subject to domestic tort law. Consequently, plaintiffs injured in private international air accidents cannot avail themselves of the Montreal Convention and must pursue claims under applicable state or local law.
