A Dented Suitcase, an Airline Refusal, and a Passenger Right

After a baggage delay, a traveler's hard-shell suitcase was delivered by courier with two deep dents that could not be pushed out. KLM, the airline responsible for the bag, initially described the damage as normal wear and tear. The passenger was left asking whether a suitcase has to crack or become unusable before a claim is accepted.

The case, originally reported by Bild, highlights a common grey area in air travel. Superficial scratches, scuffs, light dirt, small scratches and sticker residue are usually considered ordinary use. By contrast, broken handles, damaged wheels, destroyed telescopic handles, broken zips or fasteners, cracks, holes, broken parts and deformations that affect use or stability generally point to compensable damage.

KLM told Bild that whether luggage damage is reimbursable does not depend on how it looks, but on whether proper use of the baggage is restricted. Dents and deformations in hard-shell suitcases are assessed individually, taking into account the size and location of the damage and its possible effect on the suitcase's stability and durability.

BILD legal expert Nicole Mutschke said that under the Montreal Convention, an airline is generally liable for damage to checked baggage even without its own fault. The suitcase does not have to be completely unusable. In her view, deep and permanent deformation of this kind may go beyond normal signs of use.

Why a Hard-Shell Dent Is Harder to Claim Than a Broken Wheel

The Legal Standard Is Broader Than Many Passengers Assume

Under the Montreal Convention, the starting point favors the passenger: airlines are generally liable for damage to checked baggage even when they were not at fault. That means a traveler does not need to prove negligence by the airline. The practical question is whether the damage is serious enough to count, and that is where hard-shell dents become contentious.

Why KLM's Case-by-Case Standard Leaves Dents in a Grey Zone

KLM's position is that visual appearance is not decisive; what matters is whether the suitcase's proper use is restricted. A heavily dented hard shell can often still close and roll, so the airline may classify it as acceptable wear. But the passenger's counterargument is that deep, permanent deformation can weaken the material and reduce long-term stability, even if the bag has not yet cracked. That interpretation is supported by the legal expert cited in the article, who said the damage appears to go beyond normal use.

Where the Passenger Has Leverage

The dispute is not only about the airline. The article advises passengers to check whether the suitcase is still under warranty, which can last longer than the standard 24-month statutory period, and to ask the manufacturer for a free repair as a goodwill gesture. Well-known brands may be more likely to agree. This gives the passenger a second route to relief even if the airline maintains its refusal.

What Passengers Should Do After a KLM-Style Refusal

Passengers facing a similar refusal should focus on function and stability rather than appearance. The specific steps suggested in the case are:

  • Appeal the refusal in writing. The article recommends wording such as: "I would like to appeal against the refusal of my claim and request that my case be reconsidered."
  • Describe the functional impact, not just the look. Explain how the dents, deformation or damage affect the suitcase's stability, durability or normal use.
  • Document the damage. Photograph the suitcase from multiple angles, including size and location of dents, and keep any baggage report or delivery records.
  • Check the manufacturer's warranty. It may run longer than 24 months. Contact the producer even if the airline refuses, because a free repair may be possible as a goodwill gesture.
  • Use KLM's own standard. Ask the airline to assess whether proper use of the bag is restricted, rather than simply dismissing the dent as visual wear.