BNUMBER:  B-250188, supra.
DATE:  
TITLE:  B-261980
File:Cartwright International Van Lines-Claim for Reimbursement
of Amounts Collected by Offset for Loss of or Damage to
Household Goods
Date:January 26, 1996
DIGEST
This Office will not question an agency's determination of the
replacement cost of household goods in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence that the agency's determination is unreasonable.
DECISION
On behalf of Cartwright International Van Lines, Resource Protection
requests review of Claims Group settlement Z-2609168, dated Mar. 9,
1995.  Except for a refund of $94.25, the Claims Group denied
Cartwright's claim.  We affirm the Claims Group's settlement.
Under government bill of lading No. RP-997-689, the household goods of
Lieutenant Colonel John X. Olivo, United States Air Force, were picked
up June 24, 1992, and delivered in San Antonio, Texas, on August 12,
1992.  Although there was apparently extensive damage to the shipment,
the only item under consideration in this appeal is one wardrobe box
of clothing.  Water damage ruined the clothing.  The shipper supplied
a list of the clothing in the wardrobe box along with replacement
costs.  He indicated that the individual items of clothing were
purchased between 1986 and 1992.  The Air Force considered the
member's replacement cost figures reasonable and, based on an average
age for the clothing of 3 years, reduced the claimed replacement costs
by 50 percent to allow for depreciation.  A uniform which was in the
wardrobe was originally not depreciated, but the replacement cost was
later reduced by 50 percent for that item as well.
A prima facie case of carrier liability is
established by a showing of tender of goods to the carrier in good
condition, delivery in a more damaged condition, and the amount of
damages.  The burden of proof then shifts to the carrier to rebut the
prima facie liability.  See
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S.
134 (1964).
A case of prima facie liability has been
established in the present situation, and the carrier has presented no
evidence to rebut Cartwright's liability.
Regarding the amount of damages assessed, this Office generally will
not question an agency's determination of the replacement cost of
household goods in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that
the agency acted unreasonably.  See American Van

**********************************************************************

Matter of:B-261980

File:     Cartwright International Van Lines-Claim for Reimbursement 
          of Amounts Collected by Offset for Loss of or Damage to 
          Household Goods

Date:   January 26, 1996 

DIGEST

This Office will not question an agency's determination of the 
replacement cost of household goods in the absence of clear and 
convincing evidence that the agency's determination is unreasonable.

DECISION

On behalf of Cartwright International Van Lines, Resource Protection 
requests review of Claims Group settlement Z-2609168, dated Mar. 9, 
1995.  Except for a refund of $94.25, the Claims Group denied 
Cartwright's claim.  We affirm the Claims Group's settlement.

Under government bill of lading No. RP-997-689, the household goods of 
Lieutenant Colonel John X. Olivo, United States Air Force, were picked 
up June 24, 1992, and delivered in San Antonio, Texas, on August 12, 
1992.  Although there was apparently extensive damage to the shipment, 
the only item under consideration in this appeal is one wardrobe box 
of clothing.  Water damage ruined the clothing.  The shipper supplied 
a list of the clothing in the wardrobe box along with replacement 
costs.  He indicated that the individual items of clothing were 
purchased between 1986 and 1992.  The Air Force considered the 
member's replacement cost figures reasonable and, based on an average 
age for the clothing of 3 years, reduced the claimed replacement costs 
by 50 percent to allow for depreciation.  A uniform which was in the 
wardrobe was originally not depreciated, but the replacement cost was 
later reduced by 50 percent for that item as well.

A prima facie case of carrier liability is established by a showing of 
tender of goods to the carrier in good condition, delivery in a more 
damaged condition, and the amount of damages.  The burden of proof 
then shifts to the carrier to rebut the prima facie liability.  See 
Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964).

A case of prima facie liability has been established in the present 
situation, and the carrier has presented no evidence to rebut 
Cartwright's liability.

Regarding the amount of damages assessed, this Office generally will 
not question an agency's determination of the replacement cost of 
household goods in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that 
the agency acted unreasonably.  See American Van Services, Inc., 
B-250188, Mar. 4, 1993.  Mr. Cates has presented no such evidence.

The Air Force accepted the shipper's replacement costs, some of which 
he substantiated with catalog pictures, and then reduced them for 
depreciation.

The carrier disagrees with those replacement costs and calls our 
attention to two Comptroller General decisions, Cartwright 
International Van Lines, Inc., B-252430, June 10, 1993, and Suddath 
Van Lines, B-247430, July 1, 1992, in which we required more 
substantiation than merely the shipper's statement of the replacement 
cost of certain items of household goods.  However, those cases 
involved distinctive items-a Karastan rug and a figurine-for which it 
would not be unreasonable to require the shipper to provide a sales 
receipt or some other documentation of value.  Clothing, on the other 
hand, is not so distinctive, and it would be unreasonable to require a 
shipper to provide sales receipts and dates of purchase for large 
numbers of clothing items.  We see no reason to question the Air 
Force's determination regarding the value of the shipper's clothing.  
See B-250188, supra.

Accordingly, we affirm the Claims Group's settlement.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel