Examining Sufficiency of Cargo Damage Notice for Recovery Under the Montreal Convention

OEC Group (NY) Inc. v. China Cargo Airlines Ltd. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2024)

In OEC Group, an Illinois federal court considered what constitutes sufficient notice to trigger air carrier liability for damaged cargo under the Montreal Convention, a treaty governing air carrier liability applicable to all international carriage of persons, baggage, or cargo performed by aircraft for reward. This decision provides valuable guidance on the Montreal Convention requirements for notice to an air carrier to recover for damage to cargo transported by air during international carriage.

The case involved damage to 16 packages of tempered glass that were transported by air from China to the United States.  The air carrier received the cargo in Shanghai without noting any damage and transported it to Chicago. Upon arrival, the air carrier’s ground handling agent received the cargo and transferred it to a delivery driver, an agent for the plaintiff freight forwarder. The delivery driver signed a notification indicating that the cargo was received in “complete and good condition." However, a note from the ground handling agent mentioned that "freight is bent/broken” and that the "internal packaging [was] damaged." The cargo was then delivered to the consignee, which was found to be "broken throughout” with shattered glass contents; however, the air carrier was not notified until a month later. 

Under Article 31 of the Montreal Convention, to recover damages from an air carrier, the person entitled to take delivery of the cargo must give the carrier written notice of any damages within fourteen days of receiving the cargo. Courts enforce Article 31 strictly: it bars recovery if written notice is not provided within fourteen days, even when an air carrier has actual or constructive notice of a damage claim, and the written statement must indicate that the cargo is damaged. 

The court concluded that the statements “freight is bent/broken” and “internal packaging damaged" did not constitute sufficient notice, as they only raised the possibility of damage, which the court deemed inadequate under US case law interpreting Montreal Convention Article 31. Furthermore, even if such written notice were adequate, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it, rather than the air carrier’s ground handling agent, provided notice of the cargo damage to the carrier.