BNUMBER:  B-260769
DATE:  November 1, 1995
TITLE:  National Forwarding Co., Inc.

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

Matter of:National Forwarding Co., Inc.

File:     B-260769

Date:     November 1, 1995

DIGEST

A carrier is not liable for damage to articles in a service member's 
household goods shipment when the carrier vigorously pursues its 
inspection rights within the time permitted in its contract, the 
service member discards the broken articles within the time that the 
carrier was permitted to inspect them and before the carrier had the 
opportunity to do so, and the record indicates that the carrier had a 
substantial defense involving facts discoverable by inspection.

DECISION

The National Claims Services, Inc., on behalf of the National 
Forwarding Company, Inc., requests review of our settlement of 
February 6, 1995, upholding the Army's collection of $2,468 for damage 
to the household goods shipment of a service member.[1]  We modify our 
prior settlement with respect to the crystal and affirm the remainder.

On review, the carrier expresses concern about the Army's failure to 
accord National its inspection rights with respect to the broken 
crystal (item 377).  The service member claimed that the carrier broke 
8 stem glasses, 8 highball glasses, 8 "Old Fashion" glasses, 2 round 
decanters, 2 square decanters, 8 coasters, and a crystal punch bowl 
set with 12 glasses, with a combined liability of approximately 
$1,450.  Some items were Baccarat crystal, others were Atlantis 
crystal.  All of the broken articles were discarded before the 
carrier's inspector arrived.  The service member purchased these 
articles around January 1979 and no purchase receipts were contained 
in the record.

The record indicates that the carrier quickly arranged and conducted 
an inspection.  The carrier argues that it was unable to verify the 
value of the broken crystal articles because the service member had 
discarded them before its inspectors arrived.  The Army does not 
dispute that the member improperly discarded the broken articles, but 
it contends that this does not defeat recovery because the values of 
these articles were ascertainable through photographs of some of the 
surviving articles.  The Army also suggests that the broken articles 
constituted a safety hazard and that it was reasonable to dispose of 
them.

A carrier cannot usually avoid being held prima facie liable for loss 
or damage to the household goods it transports merely because 
circumstances prevent it from inspecting the damage.  This general 
rule applies where the carrier's conduct contributed in any manner to 
its failure to inspect.  See Continental Van Lines, Inc., B-215559, 
Oct. 23, 1984, modified in part by Continental Van Lines, Inc., 
B-215559, Aug. 23, 1985.  But, our decisions also recognize that a 
carrier is not liable when it vigorously pursues its inspection rights 
within the time permitted in its contract; the shipper discards the 
damaged item within the time that the carrier was permitted to inspect 
it and before the carrier had the opportunity to do so; and the record 
indicates that the carrier had a substantial defense involving facts 
discoverable by inspection.  See Stevens Worldwide Van Lines, Inc., 
B-251343, Apr. 19, 1993.  The Army does not contend that the carrier 
failed to pursue its inspection rights; therefore, the issue is 
whether the carrier had a substantial defense involving facts 
discoverable by inspection.

The carrier is concerned that the member's crystal was not the type 
and quality claimed by the member and suggests that the member had 
tried to deceive it with respect to the value of other articles like 
rugs.  The Army disputes the carrier's characterization of what 
transpired with the rugs and contends that photographs of the crystal 
are proof of the value.  In reality, the issue is whether there was 
sufficient evidence on the record to establish a prima facie case of 
liability on the element of the value.

In totality, we cannot say that the carrier would not have had a valid 
defense with respect to the value of the crystal.  There are no 
purchase receipts, and the only supporting evidence of the value of 
the crystal is the photographs of some of the surviving articles.  But 
the record does not indicate whether the member made these surviving 
articles available for the carrier's inspector, and it is not clear to 
us which article presented in the photographs is identical to a 
specific article that was broken and claimed.  Also, the Army did not 
explain the safety hazard in retaining the broken crystal in the 
container used to transport it.

Perhaps, more significantly, the two Military-Industry Memoranda of 
Understanding (MOU) cited by the Army do not support its position.  
The MOU involving "Loss and Damage Rules" does not anticipate the 
discarding of broken glass prior to a carrier's inspection.  Moreover, 
the MOU with regard to salvage, which specifically does not affect 
existing inspection rights afforded to the industry, does anticipate 
the disposal of hazardous or dangerous items like broken glass, but 
broken crystal having a single item value of $50 or more must be 
retained for carrier salvage.  Many of the broken articles claimed 
exceeded this threshold.  Thus, the government and the industry 
believed that it is reasonable to require the member to retain 
expensive broken crystal for the carrier's inspection and salvage.

For these reasons, we modify our prior settlement by affirming it 
except with respect to the crystal.

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

1. The shipment moved under personal property government bill of 
lading QP-025,491 involving Robert Jones, Settlement No. Z-2862672.