BNUMBER:  B-261282
DATE:  November 30, 1995
TITLE:  Andrews Van Lines, Inc.-Claim for Reimbursement of
Amounts Collected by Setoff for Damage to Household Goods

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

Matter of:Andrews Van Lines, Inc.-Claim for Reimbursement of Amounts 
          Collected by Setoff for Damage to Household Goods

File:     B-261282

Date:     November 30, 1995

DIGEST

When prima facie liability has been established, a common carrier is 
liable for the cost of repairing household goods damaged in a move 
even though some incidental preexisting damage may be repaired in the 
process.

DECISION

This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement which 
denied the claim of Andrews Van Lines, Inc., (Andrews) for 
reimbursement of amounts collected by setoff for damage to a shipment 
of household goods.[1]  We affirm the Claims Group's settlement.

The household goods of Sergeant John D. Hornsby, USAF, were picked up 
at Glendale, Arizona, on November 2, 1990, under government bill of 
lading No. TP-353,583 and were delivered to Las Vegas, Nevada, on 
February 19, 1991.  The Air Force paid Sergeant Hornsby $1,596.87 for 
damage to the household goods and collected $1,276.92 from Andrews by 
setoff.  The Claims Group denied Andrews' claim for reimbursement of 
$1,081.00 of that amount.  In its appeal Andrews now claims 
reimbursement in the amount of $767.25.  In support of its claim 
Andrews argues that it did not receive timely notice of the damage to 
one item, that the Air Force inspection is invalid because it was not 
dated and signed, and that much of the damage claimed was preexisting 
damage.

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.  See Missouri Pacific 
Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964).

In this instance prima facie liability has been established except for 
item number 123, a desk/vanity.  Andrews has furnished its copy of DD 
Form 1840, Joint Statement of Loss or Damage at Delivery, which does 
not have damage to that item noted on it.  It was also omitted from DD 
Form 1840R, Notice of Loss or Damage, and the record does not contain 
evidence of any other form on which Andrews would have received notice 
of damage to that item within the 75 days provided for by the 
Military-Industry Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).  Under the MOU, 
the presumption of the correctness of the delivery receipt is overcome 
by written notice of additional loss or damage within 75 days of 
delivery; otherwise, loss or damage noted after delivery generally is 
presumed not to have occurred in transit.  See, Stevens Worldwide Van 
Lines, Inc., B-251343, Apr. 19, 1993; National Forwarding Co., 
B-247457, Aug. 26, 1992.

Therefore, since there is no indication in the record of notice to the 
carrier within the prescribed 75-day period, Andrews is presumed not 
liable for damage to item 123, and its claim for reimbursement of 
$165.00 is allowed.

We reject Andrews' other arguments.  While Andrews questions the 
unsigned Air Force inspection report, we have no basis for questioning 
it.  The Air Force Legal Services Agency, which submitted the 
administrative report for Andrews' claim to this Office, accepted the 
inspection report as valid and used it to make their determinations.  
We will therefore not question its validity.  Furthermore, Andrews 
would not be relieved of liability even if no inspection had been 
performed.  American Van Services, Inc., B-249834.2, Sept. 3, 1993.

With regard to preexisting damage, the Air Force's administrative 
report indicates that the Air Force inspector compared the damage 
noted on the inventory with the damage observed after delivery and 
determined that the damage after delivery was greater or of a 
different kind than that noted on the inventory.  Andrews is properly 
liable for the refinishing cost, even though some preexisting damage 
is thereby repaired.  Interstate Van Lines, Inc., B-197911.2, Sept. 9, 
1988.

With regard to a chrome-plated table and chairs, the inventory 
indicated scratches and rubs.  After delivery it was noted that the 
chrome plating was coming off, and consequently the items were 
replated.  Andrews argues that such damage was not transit-related but 
offers no evidence to rebut its prima facie liability.  It is 
therefore liable.  See Interstate Van Lines, Inc., B-197911.2, supra.

For the items in question which required refinishing and replating, 
the Air Force offered to settle for less than the full amount it 
collected from Andrews to allow for some preexisting damage.  For the 
items in question, other than item 123, the offer amounted to $365.75.  
We deny Andrews' claim except for $165.00 for item 123, plus the 
amount offered by the Air Force.

Andrews' claim should be handled accordingly.

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

1. Z-2729037-91, March 30, 1995.