Allied Van Lines-Claim for Reimbursement of Amounts

B-270007 Jun 20, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A prima facie case of carrier liability is established where lost items bear a reasonable relationship to items shown on the inventory as having been packed in the carton containing the lost items. Software that are compatible parts of a single personal computer arrangement bear such a reasonable relationship to each other. 2. Where specific items are listed on the DD Form 1840. The fact that the shipper may have mistakenly failed to identify the correct box number in which the allegedly lost items were located does not negate otherwise timely notice of the loss. Was broken into. Some items were stolen. The remainder of the shipment was delivered to Memphis. Based on a finding that the evidence of tender of those items to the carrier was deemed insufficient. View Decision Matter of: Allied Van Lines-Claim for Reimbursement of Amounts Collected by Setoff for Lost Computer and Software File: B-270007 Date: June 20, 1996 DIGEST DECISION Allied Van Lines, through its agent, Resource Protection, requests reconsideration of our Claims Settlement Z-151685(95), September 5, 1995, to the extent the settlement disallows reimbursement of the offset from funds otherwise due Allied. The setoff arose from loss during storage and shipment of the household goods of Odis Braxton, government bill of lading No. 768-577. We affirm the Claims Settlement. The record shows that the carrier picked up the shipment of household goods on April 8, 1992, from San Pedro, California. On April 10, 1992, the shipment, while in temporary storage in San Diego, was broken into, and some items were stolen. The remainder of the shipment was delivered to Memphis, Tennessee, on September 25, 1992. The Army paid the shipper for items lost in the theft and filed a claim with Allied for $4,946. Allied offered to pay $2,672. The Army offset the entire $4,946 and Allied requested a refund of $2,719. Our Claims Settlement allowed refund of $739 for a color scanner and fax modem which had been claimed by the shipper, based on a finding that the evidence of tender of those items to the carrier was deemed insufficient. The settlement denied reimbursement for the balance of the offset, $1,980. Allied requests refund of that amount. According to the Military-Industry Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) upon delivery, a carrier is responsible for providing the member a copy of the Joint Notice of loss or damage at Delivery (DD Form 1840, hereafter referred to as the 1840). The reverse side of this form is the Notice of Loss or Damage (DD Form 1840R, hereafter referred to as the 1840R) which is used to report damage discovered after delivery. The MOU provides that the carrier will accept written notice on the 1840R as overcoming the presumption that the delivery receipt was correct so long as the form is dispatched to the carrier within 75 days of delivery. The carrier then has 45 days from the dispatch date to inspect the loss or damage. The shipper then fills out a List of Property and Claims Analysis Chart (Form 1844) which is completed by the claims office and which is dispatched to the carrier with the Demand on Carrier/Contractor (Form 1843). At issue in this case is inventory item No. 63, a box, 3 cubic feet in size, which is listed as missing on the 1840. Box No. 63 is identified on the 1840 as containing "Pack Bell Print/K board, software." At a later date, on the 1844, the shipper claimed that the computer, keyboard, laser printer, a color scanner, mouse, modem and 22 software programs were shipped in that box. /1/ The main issue raised by the carrier is that since it would be physically impossible to place all the items listed by the shipper in a box of that size, either the items were not tendered or were not missing, and thus the carrier is not liable. The Army asserts that the computer is listed on the 1840, and that the carrier was on notice from the 1840 that the entire computer system was missing. In addition, the Army asserts that all of the items listed were not in one box, but were divided between boxes No. 62, 63 and 136. A statement from Mr. Braxton, dated July 17, 1995, indicates that he mistakenly identified all the items as having been in box No. 63, when he should have noted that some of the items were missing from box No. 136. Allied asserts that since it received no notice that box No. 136 was missing during the applicable 75 day time period, the notification is not timely. The Army argues that since the items themselves were identified on the 1840, the fact that Mr. Braxton may not have identified the correct box does not relieve the carrier from liability. The Army found evidence of tender of the remaining items. The computer, keyboard and printer are listed on the inventory. The software and mouse, while not listed, bear a reasonable relationship to the computer system and might reasonably be shipped in the same cartons.