AirTran failed to make the contract available for inspection at the Nassau airport. We therefore conclude that AirTran failed to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that its contract incorporated terms that disclaimed or limited liability for compensation or permitted it to deny service to Ron. Because some courts have expressed concern that “[ajirlines might hesitate to refuse passage in cases of potential danger for fear of state[-]law contract actions claiming refusal to transport,” we hasten to point out that under federal law, an air carrier is permitted to “refuse to transport a passenger or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety.” 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b) (2012). See also Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 258 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). AirTran, however, did not move for summary
holding that the contract claims of a passenger who was denied service for failing to produce identification were preempted because the carrier relied on its right under federal law to deny service and on its duty to follow a security directive from the federal aviation administration holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that the discretionary function exception to the federal tort claims act precluded tort actions based on the alleged negligence of the federal aviation administration in failing to check certain thing in the process of certificating the aircraft for use in commercial aviation