U.S. FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES DELAYED BAG-RELATED LAWSUIT AGAINST UNITED
July 28, 2023
On July 7, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued a decision dismissing a lawsuit against United Airlines (“United”) in which the Plaintiff alleged that United violated U.S. federal law by failing to deliver lost bags in a timely manner and refusing his requests for reimbursement. The Plaintiff alleged he and his wife’s bags, which included necessary prescription medications, were lost following a United flight to India. The Plaintiff also noted that United made assurances that the bags would arrive the day after the flight, but that the bags did not arrive until five days later, causing the Plaintiff and his wife to suffer medical complications and incur additional expenses based on the bags’ delayed arrival. The Plaintiff also alleged that despite contacting United several times to seek reimbursement, his requests were ignored and then refused. United filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint based on the argument that he failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted by the Court. The Court agreed with United, finding that based on the Montreal Convention (the “Convention”), the Plaintiff did not assert a plausible claim for relief since the Convention does not provide a right of recovery for bag delays that are less than 21 days in duration. The Court also noted that while Article 17 of the Convention also permits passengers to obtain compensation for damaged bags if the carrier admits loss of checked baggage, United never admitted that it lost the bags. The Plaintiff also asked that the Court deny United’s motion to dismiss because United had engaged in deceptive behavior and did not show that its employees made a good faith effort to locate the bags in a timely fashion, but while the Court noted that a remedy may be available for this sort of claim under Article 19 of the Convention, it pointed out that passengers must first obtain a claim for damage to baggage under Article 17 before Article 19 would apply, and since the Plaintiff did not have a plausible claim under Article 17, Article 19 also did not apply.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6622) or Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6665).
Share This Post
Authors
