[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 42 (Thursday, April 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2347-S2348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2369. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to waive 
federal preemption State law providing for the awarding of punitive 
damages against motor carriers for engaging in unfair or deceptive 
trade practices in the processing of claims relating to loss, damage, 
injury, or delay in connection with transportation of property in 
interstate commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                   MOVING COMPANY RESPONSIBILITY ACT

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Moving 
Company Responsibility Act of 1999 to improve the protections afforded 
to consumers who hire moving companies to carry their possessions from 
one state to another. Under current law, consumers whose goods are lost 
or stolen during transit have no redress against moving companies that 
deceive or mistreat them during the claims process.
  This problem was first brought to my attention by my constituents, 
Jane Rini and John Pucci. In 1990, Ms. Rini hired a moving company to 
transport her household goods from South Carolina to Massachusetts to 
attend Smith College's Ada Comstock Program. Among Ms. Rini's 
possessions were valuable original paintings and art objects that had 
been passed down through her family. When her belongings were delivered 
by the driver employed by the moving company, Ms. Rini noticed that the 
boxes containing the works of art were missing. Although the company's 
driver was not able to locate the boxes, he demanded that Ms. Rini sign 
inventory sheets indicating that her goods had been properly delivered 
and refused to leave her house until she signed for the delivery. Under 
pressure, Ms. Rini signed the inventory sheets, noting on them that 
boxes containing the works of art were missing. She was not informed by 
the company that she should note missing boxes on the bill of lading, 
nor was she given the pamphlet containing this information, as required 
by federal law. The next day, Ms. Rini and her family unpacked the 
boxes that had been delivered and determined conclusively that eleven 
works of art were missing. They have never been recovered.
  From that point on, Ms. Rini did everything to obtain redress that 
reasonably could be expected of a consumer. She filed her claim with 
the moving company in a timely manner, and she went to great lengths to 
supply the moving company's claims adjusters with all the information 
they needed to process her claim. However, her efforts to recover 
damages for the lost artwork were met with abusive and deceptive 
tactics seemingly designed to discourage her claim.
  At the beginning of the claims process, the company demanded that Ms. 
Rini provide it with documentation such as canceled checks, recent 
appraisal information, insurance riders, or cash receipts. Ms. Rini had 
no recent information on the works because they had been handed down 
through her family for generations, but she was able to supply the 
company with photographs of most of the missing pieces, and she even 
paid for professional appraisals of the works based on the photos. She 
also provided the company with a letter from 1929 which reflected the 
authenticity of some of the pieces.
  Mr. President, this should have been more than enough to satisfy the 
company as to the validity of Ms. Rini's claim, but the company refused 
to accept appraisals unless they were based upon actual examination of 
the objects. Meanwhile, Ms. Rini was told by a company representative 
that a thorough investigation of her claim would be conducted, but the 
representative negligently failed to interview or take written 
statements in a timely manner from any of the employees involved in the 
move who might have been able to substantiate the claim.
  Almost nine months later, the company denied Ms. Rini's claim on the 
grounds that all items were delivered and signed for on the bill of 
lading without a notation indicating missing items; that the company 
had not received adequate documentation to substantiate Rini's claims; 
and that the company had not uncovered any evidence that the works had 
not been delivered to Northampton.

[[Page S2348]]

  Ms. Rini finally took her case to a District Court in Massachusetts. 
During the trial, the moving company's own expert witnesses testified 
that reliable and fair estimates of the value of works of art are 
commonly obtained through examination of photographs, but the company 
maintained that Ms. Rini's documentary proof was insubstantial and 
denied that it had a duty to settle the claim. Upon hearing the 
testimony, the court found Ms. Rini's documentation provided sufficient 
evidence upon which the moving company should have settled her claim. 
It further characterized the company's tactics as ``unfair,'' 
``unethical,'' and ``deceptive,'' and found that Ms. Rini was entitled 
to recover damages for injury she suffered as a result of the company's 
negligence and misrepresentation throughout the claims process. 
However, the District Court's decision, which was based on 
Massachusetts law, was overturned by the First Circuit Court of 
Appeals, which found that state law providing relief to Ms. Rini is 
preempted by the federal law establishing uniform liability for motor 
carriers.

  Mr. President, Ms. Rini's story is just an illustration of the larger 
problem. Under current law, irresponsible, unethical moving companies 
are allowed to mistreat those who depend on them for service, and there 
is no recourse for consumers who are the victims of negligence or 
deception. Consumers who place their trust in moving companies should 
have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated with 
consideration and respect at all times; and when a company fails to 
deliver on its promise to transport household goods in good condition, 
consumers' efforts to recover damages should not be met with the kind 
of abuse and deception that Ms. Rini experienced. No consumer should 
have to suffer that sort of treatment.
  Unfortunately, current law provides little or no incentive for moving 
companies to make sure that customer claims are handled fairly. In 
fact, under current law, moving companies can act irresponsibly and 
unfairly with impunity. According to the Department of Transportation, 
well over 2,500 complaints were filed against moving companies in 1998, 
the most recent year for which this information is available. That's 
more than 2,500 consumers who believe they were treated unfairly--and 
those are just the consumers who actually took the time to file 
complaints. The time for Congress to act to protect consumers is now, 
and passage of the Moving Company Responsibility Act is the first step.
  The Moving Company Responsibility Act would provide customers with a 
means of redress against unethical companies by allowing them to pursue 
claims under state law. The penalties and fines available under state 
laws would serve as an incentive to companies to treat customers fairly 
throughout the business relationship. This is a simple bill, but it is 
needed to ensure that consumers are adequately protected when they 
contract with moving companies.
  I would like to thank my constituents, Ms. Rini and Mr. Pucci, for 
bringing this important consumer protection matter to my attention.
  This bill will provide important protections to consumers, and I hope 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it 
so that we can pass it quickly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2369

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. STATE COURT AWARDS OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR UNFAIR 
                   OR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES OF MOTOR CARRIERS IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH CLAIMS FOR LOSS, DAMAGE, 
                   INJURY, OR DELAY OF TRANSPORTED PROPERTY.

       (a) Punitive Damages Authorized.--Section 14706 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Punitive Damages for Unfair or Deceptive Practices.--
     Nothing in this section limits the liability of a carrier for 
     punitive damages authorized under applicable State law for 
     any act or omission of the carrier in connection with the 
     investigation, settlement, adjudication, or other aspect of 
     the processing of a claim under this section that constitutes 
     an unfair or deceptive trade practice under such State 
     law.''.
       (e) Retroactive Effective Date and Applicability.--
     Subsection (h) of section 14706 of title 49, United States 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall take effect as of 
     January 1, 1990, and shall apply with respect to receipts and 
     bills of lading referred to in subsection (a)(1) of such 
     section that are issued on or after that date.
                                 ______