Resource Protection

B-270321 Mar 21, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where proper notice of later-discovered loss or damage to a military member's household goods shipment is provided to the carrier within the prescribed time limit. The presumption of correct delivery is overcome and the burden of establishing that it is not liable for the loss or damage falls on the carrier. The fact that the loss or damage was not noted by the member at delivery. Although the carrier performed the unpacking while the member or spouse was present in the residence. Does not relieve the carrier from liability since it is unreasonable to expect the member to note every item of loss or damage during the unpacking. The carrier's assertion that the loss or damage was preexisting. View Decision Matter of: Resource Protection File: B-270321 Date: March 21, 1996 Where proper notice of later-discovered loss or damage to a military member's household goods shipment is provided to the carrier within the prescribed time limit, as required by the Military-Industry Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the presumption of correct delivery is overcome and the burden of establishing that it is not liable for the loss or damage falls on the carrier. The fact that the loss or damage was not noted by the member at delivery, although the carrier performed the unpacking while the member or spouse was present in the residence, does not relieve the carrier from liability since it is unreasonable to expect the member to note every item of loss or damage during the unpacking, and the MOU does not preclude claiming later-discovered loss or damage in these circumstances. Where agency has assessed liability for loss or damage to household goods items against the carrier based on owner's claims, repair estimates, and an inspector's report, the carrier's assertion that the loss or damage was preexisting, without substantial supporting evidence, is not sufficient to overcome the agency's determination. DECISION Resource Protection, on behalf of Carlyle Van Lines, has appealed Claims Settlement No. Z-2866671(30) which denied Carlyle's request for a refund of moneys the Air Force offset for loss and damage to a shipment of an Air Force member's household goods. As explained below, we sustain the denial of the claim. The household goods were picked up at Alexandria, Louisiana, on March 27, 1992, and delivered to Riverside, California, on April 20, 1992. Unpacking service was not waived in writing by the member, and apparently the carrier performed this service. At the time of delivery, damage to several items was noted on the DD Form 1840. Twenty-three days after delivery, DD Form 1840R was dispatched to the carrier noting a number of additional items of loss or damage. It is the carrier's liability for these later-listed items that Resource Protection disputes. Resource Protection asserts that when the carrier performs the unpacking service, the military member personally views each item that is unpacked and directs the specific place where it is to be placed, and thus both the shipper and the unpacker know at that time whether there has been any damage. Therefore, Resource Protection argues, it is incumbent upon the shipper and unpacker to list any damage at the time of unpacking, and thus the carrier cannot be held liable for later-reported loss or damage in cases where the carrier performs the unpacking. In support of its position, Resource Protection refers to paragraph A(1) of the Military-Industry Memorandum of Understanding regarding loss or damage to household goods. This paragraph states in part, "For later discovered loss or damage, including that involving packed items for which unpacking has been waived in writing, written documentation on DD Form 1840-1 [now DD Form 1840R] advising the carrier of later discovered loss or damage, dispatched not later than 75 days following delivery, shall be accepted by the carrier as overcoming the presumption of the correctness of the delivery receipt." Resource Protection interprets the specific reference to "packed items for which unpacking has been waived" as being unnecessary except if the paragraph was meant to exclude items unpacked in the presence of the member. We disagree with these arguments. First, while we do not dispute that the member or his or her spouse is usually in the residence while the carrier unpacks, and directs where the items are to be placed, often the unpacking is performed by more than one person and in more than one location in the residence simultaneously, and the unpacking is, at times, accompanied by a good deal of litter and confusion. In addition, some loss or damage is not readily apparent, such as chips in glass or ceramic articles and partially missing contents of a liquor bottle.