8. Loss and Damage Claim

In February 1995, Commission staff completed an informal investigation of Karrison's written complaint. Karrison had filed a loss and damage claim with A&P, even though her goods were still in storage and the bill was unpaid. A&P indicated it had delayed an auction of the household goods for non-payment of the bill until the damage claim was resolved. Staff concluded that Karrison's remedy was in civil court, since the goods were stored in excess of 90 days. (Exh. 3, Attachment R.)

MAX4, Item 92 requires that a carrier promptly acknowledge and investigate a damage claim and establish a claim register to log all action on a written claim, as well as other procedures. However, this item also requires that a shipper submit the delivery documents and evidence that the bill has been paid as a prerequisite to filing a written claim. Karrison did not pay the transportation and storage charges; therefore, she did not meet this prerequisite. A&P argues it had no obligation to open a claim register or follow other prescribed damage claim procedures. We agree. We reiterated in two prior decisions that by not paying the bill, Karrison did not perfect her damage claim. (See D.98-04-064, pp. 19-24, and D.99-01-035, p. 5.) Therefore, the damage claim procedures were not applicable.

Karrison argues that A&P intentionally delayed action on the damage investigation so that the dispute would be outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. Item 160 provides that shipments held in storage in excess of 90 days shall be subject to the rules, regulations, and charges of the individual warehouseman. Disputes over household goods held in storage over 90 days must therefore be resolved in civil court. The record shows no evidence of intentional delay. In fact, it shows continuous attempts to remedy the damage. Karrison did not want the repairs done after she retrieved her furniture, but while it was stored. A&P complied with this request. A&P chose to repair the furniture because Aman thought it would be cheaper than the $500 deductible for claims under the cargo insurance policy. Item 136.7 allows this choice. The repairs were timely made, and Karrison did not inspect them in a timely manner. Upon inspection, Karrison rejected the first repairs. A&P had a craftsman from Butterfield and Butterfield repair the furniture twice by February 1995. By this time Karrison had moved to Los Angeles. A&P sent her $500 for travel expenses to attend an inspection. After Karrison rejected the repairs, A&P's craftsman showed the work to two other repairmen, who indicated they could not improve upon the repairs. (Exh. 8, Appendix 8.) Again, even though the bill had not been paid, and even though A&P did not consider Karrison's unperfected claim to be lawfully filed, A&P forwarded Karrison's damage claim to Fireman's Fund, its insurer. Thus, the record refutes Karrison's allegation that A&P did not submit a damage liability claim to its insurer.

A Fireman's Fund claims representative attended the second inspection of the repairs. At the inspection, Karrison rejected the repairs and claimed that the vanity was worth $3,000. Fireman's Fund later requested an appraisal. After Karrison did not produce an appraisal, on March 8, 1995, Fireman's Fund offered to have each party select an appraiser with a third jointly selected, or to submit the damage dispute to an independent appraiser, the expense to be borne equally by the parties. Fireman's Fund indicated that this dispute was separate from the dispute with A&P over the bill. (Exh. 3, Attachment S.) After receiving no response from Karrison, Fireman's Fund obtained three appraisals, which valued the vanity at roughly $400 and the bedroom set at approximately $1,000. (Exh. 3, Attachment Z.). These acts by A&P and Fireman's Fund do not show delay or unlawful conspiracy, as Karrison alleges.