917 F. Supp. 2d 976
D.S.D.2013Background
- Mark Benedetto, SD resident, sued Delta Air Lines for negligence, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and punitive damages.
- Benedetto flew Delta round trips between Sioux Falls, SD and LaGuardia, NY; he disclosed a firearm in checked luggage per Delta/TSA rules and placed a red tag as instructed.
- Delta did not warn about New York gun laws or disclose its policy of reporting firearms to Port Authority Police at LaGuardia; Benedetto was later arrested.
- Benedetto alleges physical, emotional, and verbal abuse, fear for safety, emotional distress, and a shoulder injury from police handcuffs.
- Plaintiff filed May 24, 2012 in SD state court; case removed to federal court; Delta moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court grants in part and denies in part: negligence and good-faith/fair-dealing claims preempted; contract claim survives; punitive damages not addressed at motion stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA preemption of negligence claim | Benedetto argues negligence relates to Delta's services and should not be preempted. | Delta argues negligence is preempted as it relates to carrier prices, routes, or services. | Negligence preempted by ADA. |
| Breach of contract viability and choice of law | Benedetto pleads a contract and damages; choice of law not fatal to claim. | No explicit contract terms pleaded; potential conflicts resolved; contract claim survives with damages. | Contract claim adequately pleaded; choice of law resolved with no conflict. |
| Impossibility/frustration defense to contract | Arrest/immobilization could excuse performance under impossibility. | Impossibility only if unforeseeable basic assumption; requires more facts. | Impossibility not decided at this stage; reservation for later fact development. |
| Breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing preemption | Duty of good faith is part of contract, not a separate external claim. | State-law-based duties would enlarge the contract; preempted. | Preempted under ADA regardless of form. |
| Punitive damages on Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Punitive damages are relief, not a separate claim; issues survive other claims. | Requests for punitive damages should be addressed at dismissal. | Not addressed at this stage; punitive damages not dismissed as standalone claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (ADA preemption applies to state laws related to prices, routes, or services)
- Botz v. Omni Air Int’l, 286 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2002) (ADA preemption of Minnesota whistleblower statute)
- Data Manufacturing, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 557 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (FAAA-like preemption test; preemption of misrepresentation and related claims; contract-fee penalties preempted)
- Wolens, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (state-law contract principles may be preempted if they enact state public policies external to the agreement)
- A&S Transp. Co. v. County of Nassau, 154 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) (government actions may render performance excused; impossibility notions discussed)
- Reads Co., LLC v. Katz, 72 A.D.3d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (consequential contract damages described under New York law)
- Bad Wound v. Lakota Cmty. Homes, Inc., 603 N.W.2d 723 (S.D. 1999) (measure of damages in SD contract cases)