When cargo arrives damaged after an international flight with a connection, the question is not only "who did it?" but "in which contract did the damage occur, and before which court can I file my claim?". The First Civil Court of Santiago settled this in Case No. 18,230-2023, rejecting the claim against Ethiopian Airlines for lack of a causal link and declaring that Chilean courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the action against British Airways. The ruling applies the rules of the Montreal Convention and provides concrete guidance for exporters, logistics operators, and insurers that handle perishable cargo on air routes with multiple carriers.
What happened
In late November 2021, 1,441 boxes of Chilean cherries were dispatched from Santiago with final destination Hong Kong. The itinerary comprised two legs operated under separate contracts: Santiago–Miami, handled by Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise, and Miami–Hong Kong, under the responsibility of British Airways PLC. The exporter, Tuniche Fruits Ltda., had contracted each leg with its own independent air waybill (AWB).
The cargo was due to arrive on November 26, 2021. It arrived on December 3, seven days later. According to the claim, the fruit showed signs of fermentation, rot, and widespread deterioration, although the court ultimately did not rule on the existence or amount of the damages. The German insurer Carl Schröter GmbH & Co. KG, which had covered the loss and been subrogated to Tuniche Fruits' rights, filed a claim for $22,520,427 against both airlines, alleging joint and several liability under the Montreal Convention and the Chilean Aeronautical Code.
The court resolved the dispute on two distinct levels.
Regarding British Airways: it upheld the plea of lack of jurisdiction. The contract for the Miami–Hong Kong leg was entered into abroad, through a U.S. cargo agency. The jurisdiction rules of article 33 of the Montreal Convention are exhaustive: the action may only be brought before the court of the carrier's domicile, that of its principal place of business, that of the place where it has the office through which the contract was made, or that of the place of destination. None of those forums placed the action against British Airways in Chile.
Regarding Ethiopian Airlines: the court rejected both the contractual action and the subsidiary tort action. It was not proven that the airline had breached the obligations of the Santiago–Miami leg it was responsible for, nor that the alleged damage was attributable to its conduct. Without a proven breach or causal link, liability does not arise.
The judgment also dismissed the claim of joint and several liability: two autonomous AWBs with two different airlines do not constitute unified successive transport, nor do they automatically generate joint liability.
What it may mean for your company
If your company exports perishable or high-value products by air on routes with connections, this ruling affects you directly.
The central point is this. When you sign independent AWBs with each airline, you have separate contracts, subject to different liability regimes and, potentially, to different jurisdictions. There is no automatic "joint carrier" that centralizes the risk. If the fruit arrives damaged after three legs, you will have to identify in which one the deterioration occurred and sue in the correct forum under the Montreal Convention.
There is another angle that must not be overlooked. Article 31 of the Montreal Convention requires the claimant to submit a timely complaint to the carrier upon receiving the damaged cargo or, at the latest, within the deadlines established in the treaty. British Airways invoked this requirement as an additional defense. A complaint filed out of time may extinguish the right to claim, regardless of who was responsible on the defective leg.
A relevant gray area: the distinction between "successive transport" —where, in the case of cargo, the consignor may act against the first carrier, the consignee against the last, and both against the one that operated the leg in which the damage occurred, these being jointly and severally liable (article 36 of the Convention)— and "independent contracts" —where each operator is liable only for its leg— is not always evident in the commercial documentation. The way the transport documents are structured, and who appears as a party in each contract, determines which regime applies. That detail, often delegated to the freight agent without much legal review, has direct consequences for the success of any future claim.
For companies that purchase cargo insurance: the ruling illustrates the subrogation challenge when the insured has contracts with multiple carriers. The insurer can recover only what the insured could have collected in a competent court, against the correct defendant. If the transport documentation does not allow the causal link to be traced to a specific operator, the insurance may end up being the only source of effective compensation.
Could you, today, trace a cargo loss to the leg and the responsible carrier, and claim in the correct forum? Schedule a review of your multi-leg transport contracts and your cargo policies.
What you can do
If your company exports air cargo on routes with connections, the risk is concrete. Three priority actions:
- Review the contractual structure of multi-leg transport. Before dispatching, identify whether each leg has an independent AWB or whether the freight agent is issuing a single AWB under an interline agreement. This distinction defines the applicable liability regime and the forums available to claim in the event of a loss.
- Implement an immediate-complaint protocol. Upon receiving cargo with visible damage, record the condition on the delivery AWB and notify the carrier in writing within the deadline required by article 31 of the Montreal Convention. For non-apparent damage the deadline is 14 days from receipt; for delays, 21 days from delivery. Without a timely complaint, the right to claim may be extinguished.
- Audit international cargo policies. Verify that your coverage expressly contemplates the possibility that the causal link cannot be attributed to a specific operator, and that the policy includes clauses covering limited-subrogation situations. A loss with no identified party or competent forum should not leave your company without recovery.
If any of these points raises questions, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up your gaps in transport and cargo insurance. Schedule here.
If you are reviewing international transport contracts or assessing an ongoing cargo loss, schedule a meeting with our team.
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice.