BNUMBER:  B-261577
DATE:  March 20, 1996
TITLE:  OK Transfer & Storage, Inc.

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

Matter of:OK Transfer & Storage, Inc.

File:     B-261577

Date:March 20, 1996

DIGEST

A military service has not established a prima facie case of liability 
for transit loss of a mink coat claimed by a service member when the 
member contends that the coat was included in a box marked on the 
descriptive inventory as "clothes" and the only evidence of tender, 
other than the claim itself, is a photograph of the member's wife 
dressed in a fur coat, notice on the day that the household goods were 
delivered that a fur coat was missing, and a general statement of loss 
written by the member.  The member's general statement was a standard 
statement that he owned or used various listed missing items 
(including a "mink fur coat"); that they were not delivered at 
destination; that he had checked all of the rooms in his quarters to 
make sure that the packers left nothing behind; and that all items had 
been packed by the carrier.  The member's evidence did not include any 
type of purchase receipt or its equivalent; the record did not 
indicate the name and address of the vendor of the coat; and there was 
no detailed statement of the circumstances surrounding the tender of 
the lost coat to the carrier.

DECISION

The Department of the Army requests review of our settlement allowing 
OK Transfer & Storage, Inc.'s (OK Transfer) claim for recovery of $675 
offset by the Army for the transit loss of a mink coat belonging to a 
service member.[1]  We affirm our settlement.

OK Transfer picked up the member's household goods on September 9, 
1992, at Fort Riley, Kansas, and delivered them to the member in 
Atlanta, Georgia, on January 22, 1993.  At the time of delivery, the 
member and carrier noted that a box identified on the descriptive 
inventory as item 41, a carrier packed 3.1 cubic feet box of 
"clothes," was missing.  While there was no further description of the 
contents on the inventory, the member identified the contents of item 
41 as a "fur coat" and 2 winter coats.  Simultaneously, the member and 
carrier noted that inventory item 42, also a carrier packed 3.1 cubic 
feet box of clothes, was missing.

The member claimed that the fur coat was a 3/4 length mink coat 
purchased in November 1990 for $1,050, with a replacement cost of 
$1,500.  In support of his claim, the member wrote a standard 
statement that he owned or used various listed missing items 
(including a "mink fur coat"); that they were not delivered at 
destination; that he had checked all of the rooms in his quarters to 
make sure that the packers left nothing behind; and that all items had 
been packed by the carrier.  The member also provided a photograph 
showing his wife dressed in a fur coat.

OK Transfer contends that the picture of the member's wife in the fur 
only proves that she wore a coat at some point, but it does not 
establish a prima facie case of carrier liability for a mink coat that 
was tendered and lost.  The carrier believes that any driver would 
have inventoried the coat as a mink coat or a fur coat if one had been 
tendered.  The carrier also believes that it was the member's duty to 
alert the carrier about the high value nature of tender, and it points 
out that the member also signed the inventory.

Claim Settlement

In Settlement Certificate Z-2869191(0), March 22, 1995, we held that a 
mink fur coat was an item of such intrinsic value that it should have 
been listed on the inventory.  We also noted that there was no 
evidence that the shipper informed the carrier that such a coat was to 
be shipped nor that the shipper asked the carrier whether the fur 
should have been listed on the inventory.  Therefore, the evidence 
failed to show tender of such a coat.

The Army Claims Services identifies several bases of error in the 
certificate.  Citing two of our prior decisions, the Army contends 
that a shipper is not obliged to inform a carrier that he intends to 
ship an item of exceptional value.  The Army contends that if OK 
Transfer wanted to protect itself, it had the burden of inquiring from 
the shipper on whether he intended to ship high value items, and if he 
did, OK Transfer should have prepared a separate high value inventory 
listing such items.

The Army also suggests that it is not necessary to prove that a mink 
coat was tendered to OK Transfer because a reasonable and logical 
relationship existed between a carton described as containing 
"clothes" and a fur coat packed within it.  The Army also points out 
that the loss of both items 41 and 42 was noted immediately upon 
delivery and to support its request for review, the Army contends that 
the member recently indicated to an Army Claims Service representative 
that all of the coats were in the hall closet and that his wife 
remembered seeing the packers pack the fur coat.  The Army 
specifically states that the shipper has no responsibility with 
respect to the inventory.

Discussion

Tender of an item to the carrier is the first element in establishing 
a prima facie case of carrier liability for loss or damaged household 
goods; the shipper also must show that the item was not delivered (or 
was delivered in a more damaged condition) and the value of the item.  
See Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 138 
(1964).  In a tender dispute where an item is lost, we have inferred 
tender when the lost item bears a reasonable relationship to the items 
described on the inventory as the carton's contents.  There is no need 
for an exact match between the description of the lost item and the 
contents of the carton.  That is particularly true when it would not 
have been unusual to pack the item in the carton, and the carrier did 
the packing and prepared the inventory list.  See American Van 
Services, Inc., B-249966, Mar. 4, 1993.  But, where the value of a 
lost item is in question, the member must furnish some substantive 
evidence on the issue, like a detailed statement by the shipper or 
others.  See All-Ways H & S Forwarders, Inc., B-252197, June 11, 1993, 
and Suddath Van Lines, B-247430, July 1, 1992.

We disagree with the Army's position that the member has no 
responsibility for the accuracy of the carrier's inventory decisions; 
paragraph 1006g(13) of the Department of Defense Personal Property 
Traffic Management Regulation, Department of Defense Reg. 4500.34-R 
(October 1991) specifically states that "the member shall verify the 
accuracy of all items and information . . . on all shipping documents 
before signing."  We construe the inventory against the carrier as the 
preparer, and we agree that OK Transfer's decision to label the boxes 
as "clothes" allowed the member and the Army to claim that the 
contents included coats, which are reasonably related to "clothes."  
The issue in dispute is whether there is sufficient evidence on the 
record to demonstrate that the member tendered the claimed mink coat 
to OK Transfer.  The more valuable the lost object is, the higher the 
evidentiary standard.  See All-Ways, supra.[2]

The photograph of the member's wife dressed in a fur coat is some 
evidence that she owned a fur-type coat, and the member did note the 
loss of a "fur coat" at the time of delivery.  But, in these 
circumstances, such evidence, by itself, does not overcome the absence 
of a purchase receipt or its equivalent.  A reasonable fact finder in 
these circumstances would look for a receipt.  The mink was a major 
purchase made within 2 years of the move, and the member reasonably 
should have been expected to retain a receipt of such a purchase.  In 
the absence of such a receipt, it is reasonable to expect some form of 
substitute documentation evidencing ownership (e.g., an appraisal, 
charge card receipts, cancelled checks or bank statements, a statement 
by the seller that he sold the coat to the member and the 
description/price of the coat).  At the very least, the member should 
have provided the name and address of the seller.  A purchase receipt 
or some substitute documentation, while not absolutely essential, is 
important in these circumstances.[3]

The second major deficiency is the lack of a detailed statement of the 
facts surrounding the tender of the mink coat to the carrier.  
Initially, the Army bolstered the photograph with a handwritten 
statement from the member indicating that, after the packers finished, 
he searched all of the rooms and did not find anything remaining.  In 
the past, we criticized similar statements because they are not very 
probative.  Compare National Claims Services, Inc., B-260385, Aug. 14, 
1995, and Aalmode Transportation Corp., B-240350, Dec. 18, 1990.  
While the Army advises that the member recently "indicated" that his 
wife saw the packers place the coat into the carton, we do not think 
that this is entitled to much weight because it is not a written, 
sworn statement by the observer describing in detail the circumstances 
surrounding the tender of the lost object.  Moreover, the Army 
injected this information into the record at a very late date.

In recent years, we have reviewed several claims involving disputes 
over the accuracy of the descriptive inventory, the member's 
responsibility in reviewing the inventory, whether the inventory ought 
to reflect relatively expensive or unusual articles and the value of 
such items.  We suggest that the military services, the Department of 
Defense, and industry representatives develop more precise standards 
in this area.  The results here exemplify the recovery problems that a 
military service experiences when it does not demand more exacting 
proof from the member concerning the nature of his claim.  On the 
other hand, while there is no suggestion of a fraudulent claim in this 
case, a carrier like OK Transfer which is not vigilant in accurately 
itemizing relatively expensive or unusual articles, unnecessarily 
exposes itself to liability.  Both the government and industry need to 
assure more accurate inventories of these items.

We affirm our prior settlement.

/s/Lowell Dodge
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. The member's (Reginald A. Smith) household goods moved under 
Personal Property Government Bill of Lading RP-892,883.

2. While not directly relevant, the Army's own regulations for 
implementing the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees Claims Act 
of 1964, now codified at 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3721, states that the claimant is 
responsible for substantiating ownership or possession, the fact of 
loss or damage, and the value of the property, especially for 
expensive items.  See Department of the Army Regulation 27-20, Claims, 
para. 11-8b (1990).

3. Army guidance on the substantiation of claims under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  
3721, for example, states that as a rule of thumb, a claimant is 
normally required to provide a purchase receipt or similar evidence to 
confirm the value of items for which more than $100 is claimed.  See 
Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-162, Claims, para. 2-41 (1989).