State law did not toll Warsaw Convention's two-year statute of limitations during airline's backruptcy

Law Reporter, May 1999

Husmann v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., _ F.3d _, No. 98-1745, 1999 WL 115212 (8th Cir. Jan. 14, 1999).

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held (1) the Warsaw Convention preempts state law claims for a boarding injury and (2) state law did not toll the convention's twoyear statute of limitations during an airline's bankruptcy.

Here, Husmann was injured while boarding an airplane from London to Missouri. More than five years later, he sued the airline in a Missouri state court. The case was removed to federal court on the ground that the Warsaw Convention governs carrier liability for personal injuries sustained in international travel.

The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, finding that plaintiff's cause of action was barred under the Warsaw Convention's two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the claim was not governed by the Warsaw Convention and that, even if the convention applied, his claim was tolled while defendant was under bankruptcy protection.

Affirming, the Eighth Circuit noted that whether the Warsaw Convention preempts state law causes of action for injuries in international flight was an issue of first impression for the court. The Second and Fifth Circuits, however, have decided that such causes of action are preempted. The court found the other circuits' reasoning persuasive: that allowing state causes of action would frustrate the convention's goals of uniformity and certainty by causing inconsistent application of the law to the same accident and preventing airlines from predicting applicable law.

The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that even if the convention's limitations period applied, state law allowed for a tolling while the airline was in bankruptcy, thus bringing plaintiff's claim within the statute of limitations. The court noted that although Missouri law tolls the statute of limitations during an injunction period, the Second Circuit had rejected a similar argument that state law was controlling. In fact, the court said, the drafters of the convention had specifically rejected a proposed revision that would have allowed the limitations period to be tolled under the forum state's law.

Thus, summary judgment was proper.