Carlyle Van Lines

B-270114 May 22, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A delivering carrier is responsible for the loss of. A service member's household goods that were prepacked by a nontemporary storage contractor if the service member otherwise presents a prima facie case of liability against the delivering carrier. While the carrier may not have a general obligation to open prepacked containers of household goods to examine their contents. The carrier is the last bailee to possess such goods prior to delivery. It is presumed that the loss did occur while in its custody. They were placed into temporary storage. The goods were converted to nontemporary storage (NTS). The numbering was different and some items were described only in a very general manner (e.g. View Decision Matter of: Carlyle Van Lines File: B-270114 Date: May 22, 1996 A delivering carrier is responsible for the loss of, or damage to, a service member's household goods that were prepacked by a nontemporary storage contractor if the service member otherwise presents a prima facie case of liability against the delivering carrier. While the carrier may not have a general obligation to open prepacked containers of household goods to examine their contents, the carrier is the last bailee to possess such goods prior to delivery, and, in the absence of evidence that the loss did not occur in its custody, it is presumed that the loss did occur while in its custody. DECISION Carlyle Van Lines requests review of our settlement (Settlement Certificate Z-2866671-26) of September 13, 1995, in which we denied its claim for a refund of amounts set off against it by the United States Air Force to recover for transit loss or damage to service member's household goods. Two missing items remain in dispute in this review: a glass lamp with flowers ($184.90) and a missing box spring ($145.00). We affirm our settlement. Background The service member shipped household articles from Germany in November 1985, and they were placed into temporary storage. Afterwards, the goods were converted to nontemporary storage (NTS), and the NTS contractor in Phoenix, Arizona, prepared a second inventory. Under a separate bill of lading, [1] Carlyle obtained the household goods from the NTS contractor in June 1991, and delivered them to the service member in Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, on July 11, 1991. The descriptive inventory at origin in Germany showed item 41 as a glass lamp with flowers, and item 67 as a "spring". When Carlyle obtained the goods in 1991, the NTS contractor provided it a second inventory that facially contained many of the same items as in the first inventory, but the numbering was different and some items were described only in a very general manner (e.g., some were described as a "dish pack" instead of describing the contents inside). The Air Force's position is that the glass lamp with flowers, item 41 on the original or first inventory, is item 103 described as a "dish pack" on the second inventory with a cross-reference to item 41. The Air Force also contends that item 67 on the first inventory is item 88 described on the second inventory as "part of bed - wood frame" which cross-references item 67. According to the Air Force, Carlyle picked up items 103 and 88 as listed on the second inventory when it obtained the shipment. Carlyle does not deny it picked up items 103 and 88 as listed on the second inventory, but contends that it did not obtain either the glass lamp with flowers or the box spring, and that the shipper failed to show tender to it of these items. Preliminarily, Carlyle says that it requested and never received a copy of the first inventory, and, in any event, it contends that it is responsible only for what is on the second inventory. It points out that the member referred to the glass lamp with flowers on the Notice of Loss or Damage, DD Form 1840-R, as item 40, and then as item 48 in her claim. Carlyle suggests that it was not under any obligation to open a sealed dish pack cross-referenced to item 41 to determine what was inside, and that when a sealed container is tendered by a NTS contractor, acting as the shipper's agent, the burden is on the shipper to show what was in the sealed container. Concerning the bed, Carlyle makes the same general arguments and points out that "part of bed - wood frame" is not a box spring. Discussion In McNamara-Lunz Vans and Warehouses, Inc., 57 Comp.Gen. 415 (1978), we considered a similar relationship between a NTS contractor and a delivering carrier. Some of the losses involved articles packed by the NTS contractor, and the carrier advanced the argument that it was under no obligation to unpack prepackaged containers to determine whether anything was missing or damaged.