OK Transfer & Storage, Inc.

B-261577 Mar 20, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A military service has not established a prima facie case of liability for transit loss of a mink coat claimed by a service member when the member contends that the coat was included in a box marked on the descriptive inventory as "clothes" and the only evidence of tender. Is a photograph of the member's wife dressed in a fur coat. Notice on the day that the household goods were delivered that a fur coat was missing. The member's general statement was a standard statement that he owned or used various listed missing items (including a "mink fur coat"). That they were not delivered at destination. There was no detailed statement of the circumstances surrounding the tender of the lost coat to the carrier. View Decision Matter of: OK Transfer & Storage, Inc. File: B-261577 Date: March 20, 1996 A military service has not established a prima facie case of liability for transit loss of a mink coat claimed by a service member when the member contends that the coat was included in a box marked on the descriptive inventory as "clothes" and the only evidence of tender, other than the claim itself, is a photograph of the member's wife dressed in a fur coat, notice on the day that the household goods were delivered that a fur coat was missing, and a general statement of loss written by the member. The member's general statement was a standard statement that he owned or used various listed missing items (including a "mink fur coat"); that they were not delivered at destination; that he had checked all of the rooms in his quarters to make sure that the packers left nothing behind; and that all items had been packed by the carrier. The member's evidence did not include any type of purchase receipt or its equivalent; the record did not indicate the name and address of the vendor of the coat; and there was no detailed statement of the circumstances surrounding the tender of the lost coat to the carrier. DECISION The Department of the Army requests review of our settlement allowing OK Transfer & Storage, Inc.'s (OK Transfer) claim for recovery of $675 offset by the Army for the transit loss of a mink coat belonging to a service member. [1] We affirm our settlement. OK Transfer picked up the member's household goods on September 9, 1992, at Fort Riley, Kansas, and delivered them to the member in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 22, 1993. At the time of delivery, the member and carrier noted that a box identified on the descriptive inventory as item 41, a carrier packed 3.1 cubic feet box of "clothes," was missing. While there was no further description of the contents on the inventory, the member identified the contents of item 41 as a "fur coat" and 2 winter coats. Simultaneously, the member and carrier noted that inventory item 42, also a carrier packed 3.1 cubic feet box of clothes, was missing. The member claimed that the fur coat was a 3/4 length mink coat purchased in November 1990 for $1,050, with a replacement cost of $1,500. In support of his claim, the member wrote a standard statement that he owned or used various listed missing items (including a "mink fur coat"); that they were not delivered at destination; that he had checked all of the rooms in his quarters to make sure that the packers left nothing behind; and that all items had been packed by the carrier. The member also provided a photograph showing his wife dressed in a fur coat. OK Transfer contends that the picture of the member's wife in the fur only proves that she wore a coat at some point, but it does not establish a prima facie case of carrier liability for a mink coat that was tendered and lost. The carrier believes that any driver would have inventoried the coat as a mink coat or a fur coat if one had been tendered. The carrier also believes that it was the member's duty to alert the carrier about the high value nature of tender, and it points out that the member also signed the inventory. Claim Settlement In Settlement Certificate Z-2869191(0), March 22, 1995, we held that a mink fur coat was an item of such intrinsic value that it should have been listed on the inventory. We also noted that there was no evidence that the shipper informed the carrier that such a coat was to be shipped nor that the shipper asked the carrier whether the fur should have been listed on the inventory. Therefore, the evidence failed to show tender of such a coat. The Army Claims Services identifies several bases of error in the certificate. Citing two of our prior decisions, the Army contends that a shipper is not obliged to inform a carrier that he intends to ship an item of exceptional value.