Kathryn Anne Grace

Kathryn Anne Grace (Partner-Charlotte, NC) and Christine R. Hogan (Partner-Baltimore, MD) secured affirmance of a dismissal from the Appellate Court of Maryland on behalf of our global airline carrier client. The plaintiff, a passenger on our client’s flight, alleged the airline wrongfully removed him and his children from a domestic flight from Atlanta to Baltimore and, as a result, he was emotionally distressed. This segment of the trip was the final leg of a return flight from Italy, thus part of an international journey. The plaintiff claimed the airline unjustly accused him of uttering profanities at the crew and wrongfully ejected him, describing the family’s removal as "wrongful, unfair, unjust, malicious, and callous.” He sought to recover monetary damages for emotional distress.

In an 11-page opinion, the Appellate Court confirmed first that the Montreal Convention applied to the claim and second that the Convention did not recognize his claim as viable. The three-judge panel affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the passenger’s lawsuit against our client, explaining that the multinational treaty requires any cause of action to be predicated on a physical injury. The panel further observed that, even assuming the plaintiff had sustained a qualifying injury, his claims were time-barred as he filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations provided for by the Convention.

Kathryn Grace (Partner-Charlotte, NC), Nicole Melvani (Partner-McLean, VA), and Thomas Tutone (Associate-McLean, VA) obtained dismissal with prejudice of an aviation matter on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a student pilot. The case arose out of an airplane crash that resulted in the death of the certified flight instructor, as well as injuries to the client and a teenage passenger. The certified flight instructor’s estate filed a wrongful death claim against our client, who was participating in his first day of flight instruction through a university aviation program on the day of the accident. The amended complaint alleged that the student pilot was nervous and unprepared, and caused a stall during takeoff. Kathryn and Nicole successfully argued against this. In particular, the amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief because it did not allege that the client breached any duty owed under Federal Aviation Regulations. Importantly, and in support of an argument for dismissal with prejudice, they also argued the certified flight instructor was the pilot in command and bore ultimate responsibility for the operation of the aircraft at the time of the accident, and for ensuring the student was adequately prepared for the training flight. While this was a tragic accident, the certified flight instructor’s estate could not sustain a claim for negligence against her student for failure to state a claim and any amendment would be futile. The Court agreed and dismissed the action against our student pilot client in its entirety, with prejudice.

Kathryn A. Grace (Partner-McLean, VA) and Nakea Barksdale (Associate-Baltimore, MD) secured a defense verdict in a breach of contract dispute where the plaintiff alleged he was incorrectly charged for a membership pass offered by our airline client. The plaintiff claimed that he intended to purchase a discounted membership pass but was charged for a higher-tier pass. Through meticulous cross-examination at trial, Nakea demonstrated that the plaintiff not only purchased the premium membership pass but also used its benefits immediately, booking a flight at a significantly reduced fare. Despite the plaintiff's argument, he was unable to provide any documentation to support his claim of an incorrect charge. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the airline, reinforcing the accuracy of its records and its fulfillment of the contractual terms.

Kathryn Grace (Partner-Charlotte, NC) and Nicole Melvani (Of Counsel-McLean, VA) prevailed in a seminal case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, obtaining an Order affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of a private jet charter company. The Court agreed with Kathryn and Nicole that the Montreal Convention, an international treaty that governs the international carriage of cargo by air, preempted the plaintiffs’ state law claims. The plaintiffs contracted with our client to transport passengers and cargo from Oregon to Switzerland. At a refueling stop in North Carolina, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents seized and ultimately destroyed the cargo on the grounds that it contained illegal marijuana. The plaintiffs contended that the product being transported was legal hemp and was wrongfully detained and destroyed by the government. The plaintiffs alleged that the charter company’s failure to submit proper customs paperwork resulted in the cargo’s detention and destruction, asserting causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Fourth Circuit agreed with our argument, finding all of the plaintiffs’ claims fell within the preemptive scope of the Montreal Convention’s provisions and rejecting the plaintiffs’ various attempts to characterize the claims as outside of the Convention’s scope. The Fourth Circuit’s decision will have a significant impact on claims involving international transport.

Kathryn Grace (Partner-McLean, VA) prevailed in a bench trial involving a multifaceted claim pertaining to a passenger’s luggage. The passenger sought to advance a claim of negligence and breach of warranty for two pieces of luggage – one of which was replaced with an alleged faulty bag and one of which was damaged in transit on a different flight. At trial, Kathryn argued that the claim was barred by accord and satisfaction and that the Contract of Carriage contained a Limitations of Liability clause preventing recovery. The trial court agreed and found for the airline client. The passenger appealed and a de novo trial occurred at which the court ruled in favor of the aviation client citing the same grounds. The passenger again appealed, but the Supreme Court of Maryland declined to hear the case.