7. Discussion

7.1 Transportation Rates, Storage Charges, and Insurance

On May 21, 1994, A&P provided Karrison an estimate of transportation and related charges of $909.95, in a document entitled, "Basis for Carrier's Estimated Cost of Service" (Exh. 6). The "Shipping Order and Freight Bill" (Exh. 8, Appendix 4) states the rates and charges actually assessed.⁶ Review of these two documents shows that the container charges, sales tax, moving charge and valuation charge are equal to or less than estimated or quoted. As a result, the total charges assessed ($620.41) are significantly less than those estimated ($909.95) because not all services estimated were required. These rates are also less than the maximum rate on file with the Commission during this period. Thus, Karrison has not shown a violation of Pub. Util. Code § 5198 and MAX4, Item 88.8, which prohibit a carrier from charging more than the maximum authorized rate.

A&P admits that during the move on June 4, 1994, its employee dropped an antique bedroom vanity, part of a three-piece set, breaking it into three pieces. A&P loaded the pieces into a vault with other furniture for transport to Novato. Initially, Karrison objected and accused the employee of attempting to conceal the damage. However, upon calling A&P's office, the owner assured her that it must inspect the furniture upon arrival at its storage facility. Karrison verified this information with the Commission before she allowed the furniture to be moved.⁷ A&P unloaded the vanity for Karrison to take pictures of its condition before it was transported. The Shipping Order and Freight Bill prepared during the move indicate that the vanity "fell apart on us." (Exh. 8.) This documentation does not support the allegation of concealment. The furniture was taken to A&P's storage facility and placed in storage. The parties did not agree to terms other than those in the existing contract--the furniture would be stored at Karrison's expense.

Karrison argues that the transport to storage was for the carrier's convenience to inspect the furniture, therefore, the bill was unlawful and the carrier is responsible for the accrued storage charges. However, she ignores the fact that the same inspection was to her benefit in recovering under any liability claim. We require household goods carriers to have cargo insurance to compensate shippers for exactly this type of occurrence.⁸ Karrison's rights were covered by adequate cargo insurance. At any time after the move, Karrison could have retrieved her furniture by paying the transportation and related charges.

Karrison alleged that A&P had no cargo insurance during this move. However, A&P introduced into evidence a copy of its certificate of insurance for the period April 5, 1994 through April 5, 1995. (Exh. 8, Appendix 1.) This certificate shows cargo insurance of $100,000 per vehicle with $200,000 aggregate coverage. In addition, Darcy Aman, A&P's manager, testified that A&P has always filed evidence of insurance coverage with the Commission, as required. Therefore, Karrison has not shown a failure to obtain cargo insurance.

The fact remains that this carrier performed the service of packing and moving 4300 pounds of furniture from Corte Madera to Novato. To agree with Karrison's argument that the carrier should retract the bill means this transportation and related service is free. This is not an equitable result. We cannot agree that Karrison is entitled to free shipping and storage because this carrier damaged one item of furniture, especially since we require household goods carriers to carry cargo liability insurance expressly for such occurrences. Karrison contracted to have her furniture moved and stored. It was moved and stored. Therefore, she must pay the bill.

7.2 Valuation

It is obvious that Karrison and A&P never had a "meeting of the minds" required for a valid contract regarding the $6,000 increased value for the later damaged bedroom set.⁹ On one hand, A&P provided a written rate estimate on May 19, 1994. In this estimate the salesman noted an actual cash value of $6,000 in the "remarks" section of the form (less than the standard $20,000), and included the calculation of the monthly valuation charge for this amount of increase over the standard coverage while goods were in transit ($30) and after they were stored ($18). (Exh. 3, Attachment A.) A&P's Warehouse Check Sheet dated June 4, 1994 also indicates an "Insurance Valuation $6,000 ACV." The Valuation Coverage form attached to the Warehouse Receipt and Contract dated August 31, 1994 indicates the same $6,000 valuation. (Exh. 3, Attachments C and F.) On the other hand, Karrison wrote on the Warehouse Receipt and Contract which A&P sent to her for completion, "insurance for two pieces @ $3,000 each!!! plus 60¢ for all other furniture." Karrison returned the warehouse contract with a letter indicating her changes. (Exh. 3, Attachment P.)

Darcy Aman attempted to reach Karrison by telephone to explain the valuation. After she could not reach Karrison, Aman prepared a letter dated September 14, 1994 addressing the valuation and other matters. (Exh. 8, Appendix 7.) However, before the letter was mailed, Karrison returned her call. Aman explained to Karrison everything in the letter, namely, that Karrison could not enter separate values for individual items of furniture. The blank on the moving agreement specifies a value per shipment as prescribed by Item 128(b) of MAX4. Aman also informed Karrison that she must provide proof of value for items with a declared value in excess of $100 per pound. Aman subsequently crossed out the individual value language on the warehouse contract. At the hearing, Karrison introduced into evidence Exh. 3, Attachment D, a copy of the original moving agreement, which had $6,000 entered into a box labeled:

"Shipper hereby releases the entire shipment to a value not exceeding $__________." (To be completed by shipper signing below.)

The record does not show who made the entry of $6,000. Karrison contends she did not enter a figure in this blank and that the original was in the custody of A&P, who forged this entry. A&P contends that it did not make this entry, but the original was at Karrison's premises at the time of the move, implying that she made the entry. A&P interprets the entry as an attempt to reduce the carrier`s liability. Based upon this conflict, we can only conclude that the parties disagreed over whether items were individually valued, meaning there was no agreement for individual values and the value of the entire shipment, therefore, the shipment remained at the default value, $20,000. Thus, this amendment was not a contract term. Moreover, this value is only crucial if Karrison submitted a liability claim in excess of $6,000, which was not the case.