Montreal Convention Claim Denied: What to Do Next

Montreal Convention claim denied is the airline's most common first response on baggage and delay claims, not the final outcome. The Convention imposes strict liability for damage during airline custody and documented losses for delay. Airlines deny on five recurring grounds: extraordinary circumstances, missed notice, lack of documentation, normal wear and tear, and outright denial of liability. All five have specific weaknesses when challenged. Most denials reverse on a properly worded second submission with stronger documentation. This guide is the appeal playbook.

A first denial is the airline's opening position, not its final answer. The Convention is consumer-protective and the documented appeal usually wins.

Airlines borrow EU261 language and claim 'extraordinary circumstances' as a defence on Montreal Convention claims. This is misapplied. The Convention has no extraordinary circumstances exception for baggage damage or loss (strict liability under Article 17). For delay claims under Article 19, the airline must prove it took 'all reasonable measures' to avoid the delay or that such measures were impossible. The standard is high. Weather and ATC events that delay one flight do not absolve the carrier of all delay liability. Reject the defence in writing, cite the strict liability standard, and demand specific evidence of the 'reasonable measures' taken. See airlines avoid paying EU261 compensation and extraordinary circumstances EU261 explained.

The Article 31 notice deadlines (7 days for damage, 21 days for delay or lost bag) are the airline's strongest procedural defence. If you filed the PIR at the airport, the PIR counts as written notice in most jurisdictions. If you sent email to the airline's customer service or claims address within the window, that counts. If you missed the deadline entirely, the airline can plead the defence but the claim is not automatically void. Some courts treat actual airline knowledge of the disruption as effective notice even without formal written notice. Reject the defence by citing PIR or email evidence. If the deadline truly was missed, argue actual knowledge and resubmit. See Montreal Convention time limits: how long you have to claim.

The Convention does not require receipts as a strict gatekeeper. Article 22 sets a cap; the documentation requirement is whatever the court finds reasonable to establish value. Reasonable estimated value with affidavit is acceptable. Photos of contents from before the trip, credit card statements showing purchases, photos of bag tags, vacation photos showing the bag in use, and reasonable estimated values are all valid evidence. Reject the defence by submitting whatever evidence you have plus an affidavit attesting to the values. Demand specific itemised feedback on which documentation is missing rather than a blanket refusal.

The Convention does not require receipts. Reasonable estimated value with affidavit is acceptable evidence. Reject blanket 'lack of documentation' refusals in writing.

Strict liability under Article 17 does not have a 'normal wear and tear' exception. The airline owes for damage during airline custody regardless of fault and regardless of whether the bag was already worn. Submit photos showing fresh damage (cracked shells, broken wheels, torn straps, water staining) clearly distinguishable from wear. Pre-trip photos showing the bag in undamaged condition are gold for defeating this defence. The Convention's standard is 'damage'; the airline's 'wear and tear' framing has no legal basis. See damaged baggage claim: step by step guide to getting paid and damaged luggage compensation step by step.

The airline sometimes denies outright with vague liability disclaimers from its contract of carriage. The Convention pre-empts contracts of carriage to the extent of any inconsistency: a contractual provision lower than the Convention cap is unenforceable. Article 26 prohibits any contractual term that limits liability below the cap. Reject the defence by citing Article 26 and the specific Convention article that establishes liability (Article 17 for baggage damage or injury, Article 19 for delay loss). The airline cannot contract out of the Convention.

• ›

  Header: addressed to the airline's claims department, with PIR reference, booking reference, and flight details.

• ›

  Brief recap of the claim: 2 to 3 sentences. What happened, what you claimed.

• ›

  Specific rejection of the denial ground: name the ground (extraordinary circumstances, missed notice, etc.) and cite the Convention article that defeats it.

• ›

  Resubmit documentation: photos, receipts, affidavit, anything that strengthens the claim.

• ›

  Demand specific response: ask the airline to provide its substantive analysis of the documentation, not a procedural denial.

• ›

  Set a deadline: typically 14 to 21 days for response. State that the next step is DOT complaint or NEB filing if no resolution.

If the airline refuses after a properly documented appeal, escalate. For US-handling carriers, file a DOT complaint at transportation.gov/airconsumer. For EU and UK carriers, file with the relevant national enforcement body (CAA in the UK, DGAC in France, Luftfahrt-Bundesamt in Germany, ENAC in Italy). For amounts under USD 5,000, small claims court in your state of residence is rational because airlines typically settle to avoid legal cost. The Convention's Article 33 lists five jurisdictions where claims can be brought. Track the Article 35 2-year deadline and file before it passes. See airlines deny compensation claims fight back and how to file a DOT complaint against an airline (step-by-step).

For the broader baggage rights picture, see the airline lost baggage compensation pillar. For US rights, see the US DOT pillar. Start a claim with TravelStacks for a flat fee with built-in escalation.