In a long running dispute between the Southwest Airlines Pilot’s Association and Boeing, the Business Court has granted Boeing’s motion for summary judgment disposing of the Association’s claims for consequential damages from the grounding of the 737 MAX.
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA) v. The Boeing Company (2026 Tex. Bus. 68; September 28, 2026) is one of a number of lawsuits brought by airline pilots against Boeing for design flaws in the 737 MAX. The pilots alleged that they suffered various types of damages caused by grounding the MAX fleet to address the design defects. Boeing moved for summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiff could not establish proximate causation as a matter of law, but the Business Court denied it without prejudice. Boeing renewed its motion, once again on the proximate cause issue.
In an opinion by Judge Bouressa, the court concluded that “the motion is only partially dispositive.” The parties agreed that proximate causation is an essential element of SWAPA’s claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, negligence, and fraud by non disclosure. But as the court observed, the proximate causation standard did not apply to direct damages. Here Boeing sought summary judgment on proximate cause grounds as to SWAPA’s pleaded consequential damages. These damages included loss of pilot income, loss of union dues, and investigative fees. Separately, SWAPA asserted various “misrepresentations, omissions, and tortious interference with its collective bargaining negotiations” with the airline. As to those claims, however, “SWAPA’s pleadings failed to articulate damages . . . .”
In its determination of Boeing’s prior motion, the court rules that SWAPA had failed to establish proximate cause for the first category of claims. The court further ruled that “the pleaded damages bore no causal link to the misconduct alleged.” Consequently, the court let SWAPA replead “to specify damages proximately caused by Boeing’s alleged interference in SWAPA’s collective bargainin negotiations.” SWAPA didn’t do that, merely repleading the same special damages as before. And those damages didn’t stem from Boeing’s conduct in the negotiations, but from the grounding of the 737 MAX. In short, SWAPA didn’t plead that the grounding of the fleet caused any damages from alleged interference with the union’s negotiations. SWAPA failed to establish proximate cause for its pleaded damages, and nothing Boeing did or said in the union negotiations had anything to do with the grounding of the aircraft.
Nevertheless, the court couldn’t grant greater relief than Boeing asked for, so while granting the MSJ got rid of the consequential damages issue, it didn’t dispose of the direct damages for “representations or omissions made by Boeing to SWAPA and its Members which induced it to enter into a disadvantageous collective bargaining agreement” with the airline. Those claims thus remain pending.
