Avi Ron v. Airtran Airways, Inc.
397 S.W.3d 785
Tex. App.2013Background
- Ron purchased five AirTran tickets Nassau, Bahamas to Orlando, Florida for Jan 3, 2010, for himself and family.
- Flight canceled after lengthy wait; parties dispute what occurred at the Nassau airport.
- Ron alleges AirTran offered lodging, meals, and transportation only for oversold flights and made no binding commitment.
- AirTran asserts contract terms limit liability and deny transportation, and argues preemption by the ADA.
- Ron produced a confirmatory email stating the contract could be inspected at AirTran’s counter, but Nassau inspection was unavailable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for AirTran; Ron appeals challenging compliance with notice requirements for incorporated terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AirTran properly relied on incorporated terms with proper notice. | Ron argues AirTran failed to provide notice as required by 14 C.F.R. § 253.4 and § 253.5. | AirTran contends its incorporated terms are valid and notice was provided. | Remand required; material factual issues remain about notice. |
| Whether Ron’s breach claim is preempted by the ADA. | Ron argues state-law breach claim not preempted where remedy is monetary damages. | AirTran asserts preemption because terms regulate rates/services and limits state-law remedies. | Preemption issue unresolved on record; not conclusively preempted. |
| Whether the contract terms incorporated by reference are enforceable when notice failed at the airport. | Ron emphasizes failure to provide full text at Nassau airport voids incorporation. | AirTran maintains terms remain enforceable if notice was adequate. | No conclusive ruling; facts in avoidance may affect enforceability. |
| Whether AirTran’s notice requirements under § 253.5 render notice sufficient if § 253.4 is not satisfied. | Notice under § 253.5 may suffice to inform of incorporated terms. | Notice must satisfy both § 253.4 and § 253.5; failure to § 253.4 precludes enforcement. | Not decided conclusively; remand to determine compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1995) (preemption test: relate to rates/services but not enforce contract terms monetarily)
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 116 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. 2003) (preemption where regulations govern denial of boarding and remedies; contract terms incorporated)
- Casas v. American Airlines, Inc., 304 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2002) (notice of incorporated terms; noncompliance evidence affects avoidance)
- Price v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 5 F.Supp.2d 226 (D. Vt. 1998) (notice under § 253.5; not binding if § 253.4 notice absent)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (common-law remedies not to be regarded as state-imposed requirements)