U.S. District Court
Where a plaintiff passenger has alleged that the defendant airline committed negligence and breach of contract when a beverage cart allegedly broke free in-flight and injured the plaintiff’s knee during the first leg of an employer-funded flight from Connecticut to Tennessee, Connecticut’s two-year statute of limitations applies to the negligence and breach of contract claims, so they must be dismissed as time-barred.
“This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff-passenger Michael Ricci alleges that Defendant-airline Delta Air Lines, Inc. committed negligence and breach of contract when a beverage cart allegedly broke free in-flight and severely injured Plaintiff’s knee during the first leg of an employer-funded flight from Connecticut to Tennessee.
“This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s somewhat unusual motion [ECF No. 26] asking this Court to make a choice-of-law determination at an early stage of the case for this key reason: if Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitations for negligence actions applies to Plaintiff’s claim(s), the case was timely brought and may proceed. If, however, Connecticut’s two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions applies to Plaintiff’s claim(s), Plaintiff’s case is time-barred. …
“The Court begins by considering whether Plaintiff’s claim would be ‘barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.’ … After careful review, the Court concludes that the more significant relationship test points strongly towards the use of the Connecticut limitations statute. …
“Here, Connecticut has the ‘dominant interest’ in having its statute of limitations applied. …
“Although a Plaintiff’s state of residency is not a dispositive factor in this analysis, … it is a fact that the Court may and does consider relevant here. Plaintiff did not need to cross state lines to follow this lawsuit. Indeed, Plaintiff has not suggested that the substantive law of negligence is materially different in Massachusetts such that there was a strategic reason for Plaintiff to file suit in the Commonwealth but for the timeliness issue. Thus, the undisputed fact that Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Connecticut supports a finding that Connecticut has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrences in this case. …
“A central theme of Plaintiff’s argument in favor of the application of Massachusetts law is that the Delta flight on which he was allegedly injured was part of an employer-funded trip and that his employer maintained a field office to which he was assigned in Massachusetts. … However, Plaintiff overlooks the significance of the fact that since the pandemic, he has been a remote Catalyze employee based in Connecticut. … The Court gives very little weight to the allegation that he was assigned to a Massachusetts field office, … and is instead much more interested in where he actually did his work for Catalyze, which was in Connecticut. …
“… Accordingly, Plaintiff’s status as a remote worker for Catalyze supports a finding that Connecticut has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence in this case. …
“Likely because it was a convenient option near his home (and home office), Plaintiff’s trip commenced at Bradley International Airport in Hartford, Connecticut. … Although Delta is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Georgia, … it is undisputed that just prior to Plaintiff’s alleged injury, Plaintiff, the Delta flight crew, the aircraft (and thus the equipment on board) were all last on terra firma in Connecticut. …
“… Accordingly, the fact that all the parties and equipment involved in the alleged incident had departed from a Connecticut airport supports a finding that Connecticut has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence in this case. …
“Plaintiff received significant treatment, physical therapy, and surgery related to his alleged injury in Connecticut. The fourth and final undisputed fact that supports a finding that Connecticut has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence in this case is that Plaintiff received such significant medical treatment for his alleged injury in his home state of Connecticut. … This factor is particularly important here since it is conceivable that doctors and other medical staff that treated Plaintiff could be called to testify, in addition to his medical records being at issue. It too weighs in favor of finding that Connecticut has the more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence in this case.
“For the reasons stated supra, the Court concludes that Connecticut has the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence relative to the negligence claim. …
“After careful review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim does indeed sound in negligence. … The closest thing to a purported contract that Plaintiff presented to the Court was a copy of some ‘Terms and Conditions’ contained in the Delta flight receipt that Plaintiff attached to his pleading in support of the instant motion. … However, it is not for the Court to read these terms and conditions and determine if they plausibly support a breach of contract claim. …
“After careful scrutiny, the Court finds that Count II sounds in negligence. Therefore, the Court applies Connecticut’s two-year statute of limitations to Count II for the same reasons stated supra. …
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the application of Massachusetts law [ECF No. 26] is denied. As noted supra, the Court applies the Connecticut two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions to both Counts I and II and finds that this case is therefore fully time-barred. …”
Ricci v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-121-25) (17 pages) (Guzman, J.) (Docket No. 4:24-CV-40006-MRG) (March 10, 2025).