## Facts

- Vivian Vumbaca traveled on an international Alitalia flight from Rome to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK).
- During a major blizzard on December 26–27, 2010, the flight landed and parked at JFK’s Terminal One but passengers were not permitted to deplane for nearly seven hours.
- Vumbaca alleged passengers were kept on the aircraft without food, water, or adequate sanitary conditions, causing severe emotional distress and dignitary harm.
- She attributed the delay to Terminal One Group Association, L.P. (TOGA), the private operator of Terminal One, alleging understaffing and failures in snow-removal and gate/jet-bridge operations.
- Vumbaca asserted New York tort claims (negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment) and sought damages framed as emotional and dignitary harms associated with delay and confinement.

## Issues

1. Whether TOGA qualified as an air carrier’s “agent” so that claims arising from international carriage were governed exclusively by the Montreal Convention, preempting state-law causes of action.
2. Whether the Montreal Convention permits recovery for purely emotional or dignitary harms arising from a lengthy on-board delay, absent bodily injury (Article 17) or economic loss (Article 19).
3. Whether, if not preempted, New York law allowed recovery on negligence/emotional-distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false imprisonment theories based on the alleged seven-hour confinement.

## Decision

- The court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to TOGA on all claims.
- The Montreal Convention applied and displaced the pleaded state-law theories because TOGA functioned as an agent of the carrier in performing services integral to passenger transportation and deplaning.
- The Convention afforded no remedy because plaintiff alleged only emotional and dignitary harms, with no bodily injury (Article 17) and no claimed economic loss from delay (Article 19).
- Independent of preemption, the New York claims failed: negligence-based emotional distress was not recoverable on these allegations; the conduct did not satisfy the “extreme and outrageous” standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and the record did not support the intent and wrongfulness elements required for false imprisonment.

## Legal Principles

- For international carriage, the Montreal Convention provides an exclusive remedial framework for harms within its substantive liability provisions, displacing state-law causes of action for the same operative facts.
- A non-carrier entity performing functions integral to carriers’ passenger operations (including deplaning-related ground services) may be treated as the carrier’s “agent” and may invoke the Convention’s rules and limits.
- Article 17 permits recovery only for bodily injury caused by an “accident” occurring on board or during embarking/disembarking; purely emotional distress and dignitary harms are not compensable without bodily injury.
- Article 19 addresses “damage occasioned by delay” and is generally limited to economic loss; emotional and dignitary harms from delay are not compensable absent economic damages.
- Under New York law, negligence ordinarily does not allow damages for purely emotional distress without recognized limiting circumstances; intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct; and false imprisonment requires intentional, unlawful confinement.

## Conclusion

The court held that claims against an airport terminal operator for an international flight’s prolonged on-board delay were governed by the Montreal Convention because the operator acted as the carrier’s agent, and it dismissed the action because the plaintiff sought only non-physical, non-economic harms not recoverable under Articles 17 or 19, with state-law tort theories failing as well.


Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass’n L.P., 859 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)