11. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Bennett in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______ and reply comments were filed on ________.

Findings of Fact

1. On May 19, 1994, A&P provided a written estimate to move Karrison's household goods from Corte Madera to indefinite storage at its storage facility in Novato.

2. On June 4, 1994, A&P entered into a written contract with Karrison to transport household goods from her residence to storage.

3. On August 31, 1994, Karrison placed a handwritten note on the warehouse receipt and contract that two items were valued at $3,000 each; A&P subsequently rejected this amendment to the contract. Therefore, it was not a valid amendment to the contract.

4. An unidentifiable person added $6,000 to the valuation blank on the original moving agreement; this insertion was not made on any carbon copies of the moving agreement.

5. On June 4, 1994, during the loading of Karrison's bedroom vanity onto the moving van, A&P dropped the vanity, which split into three parts.

6. A&P chose the option under the terms of its insurance policy to repair rather than replace the damaged furniture.

7. A&P twice repaired the damage to the bedroom furniture; however, Karrison was not satisfied with the repairs.

8. Karrison's oral testimony is the only evidence that employees of A&P attempted to conceal the damage to the bedroom furniture; the Shipping Order and Freight Bill indicates that the vanity "fell apart on us," a disclosure which is contrary to Karrison's assertion of concealment.

9. Karrison agreed to continue the move and A&P agreed to inspect the furniture for insurance purposes after it reached the storage facility.

10. A&P had valid cargo insurance when it performed the move.

11. After the bedroom furniture was damaged, A&P promptly notified Fireman's Fund, its insurance carrier, who attempted to resolve the dispute over the value of the vanity.

12. In a timely manner, A&P attempted to informally investigate, repair, and resolve Karrison's damage claim.

13. Karrison failed to pay the transportation and accrued storage charges for household goods services rendered on June 4, 1994. Thus, Karrison failed to perfect her damage claim.

14. The record shows evidence that a transportation bill was sent, but is not clear the date it was sent or delivered to Karrison.

Conclusions of Law

1. A&P did not commit violations of applicable rules, regulations, or statutes governing the transportation of household goods before, during, or after events surrounding the move of Karrison's household goods.

2. This complaint should be denied, effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this proceeding is denied and Case 95-03-057 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.