BNUMBER:  B-261975
DATE:  November 9, 1995
TITLE:  American Van Services, Inc.-Claim for Reimbursement
of Amounts Collected by Offset for Loss or Damage to
Household Goods

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

Matter of:American Van Services, Inc.-Claim for Reimbursement of 
          Amounts Collected by Offset for Loss or Damage to Household 
          Goods

File:     B-261975

Date:     November 9, 1995

DIGEST

The General Accounting Office will not question an agency's 
calculation of the value of the damages to items in the shipment of a 
member's household goods unless the carrier presents clear and 
convincing evidence that the agency acted unreasonably.

DECISION

This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement[1] which 
denied the claim of American Van Services, Inc., for reimbursement of 
amounts collected by offset for loss or damage to household goods.  We 
affirm the Claims Group's settlement.

Under government bill of lading No. SP-224-223, American delivered the 
household goods of Army Major Wendy R. Mullins from storage-in-transit 
on October 12, 1993.  At delivery the carrier's agent noted some 
missing and damaged items on Department of Defense (DD) Form 1840.  
Major Mullins later noted more missing and damaged items on DD Form 
1840R.  The DD Form 1840R was sent to American on December 1, 1993.  
Major Mullins filed a claim with the Army.  The Army settled her claim 
and demanded $1,319.00 from American.  In response American offered 
$542.25.  The Army reduced its claim to $1,237.00, which was collected 
from American by setoff.  The Army has since offered a refund of 
$36.78, but American claims further reimbursement.

A prima facie case of carrier liability is established by a showing 
that the shipper tendered property to the carrier, that the property 
was not delivered or was delivered in a more damaged condition, and 
that the amount of damages has been determined.  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).

In the present situation a prima facie case of carrier liability has 
been established, and American has presented no evidence which rebuts 
its liability.

American argues that the pieces of furniture damaged in the move had 
preexisting damage and that the repair estimates submitted by the 
member are not itemized so as to prevent American from paying for 
repair of the preexisting damage.  The Army report states that the 
preexisting damage to the furniture consisted of the usual scrapes and 
scratches to which furniture is subject, while the damage caused by 
the move was of a distinctly different kind.  It consisted of 
conditions such as a broken door brace, a broken leg, and a loose side 
panel.  Nevertheless, because the repair estimate did not indicate 
what repairs were being made, the Army reduced the amount allowed for 
repairs by 10 percent for the parts of a desk and 25 percent for the 
other furniture items.  This Office will not question an agency's 
calculation of the value of damage to household goods unless the 
carrier presents clear and convincing evidence that the agency acted 
unreasonably.  See Ambassador Van Lines, Inc., B-249072, Oct. 30, 
1992.  American has presented no such evidence.

Regarding items of missing hardware after the move, American questions 
the cost of the replacement hardware.  This Office will not question 
an agency's calculation of the cost of replacing the missing hardware 
unless the carrier presents clear and convincing evidence that the 
agency acted unreasonably.  See Ambassador Van Lines, Inc., B-249072, 
supra.  American has provided no such evidence.

Finally, American questions whether a set of silver bowls severely 
damaged in the move were tendered and whether they were beyond 
economical repair as determined by the Army.  Tender is primarily an 
issue when goods are missing rather than damaged.  We have said that 
the carrier is not relieved of liability for loss or damage to 
household goods simply because the items are not listed on the 
inventory, particularly when it would not have been unusual for those 
items to be packed in the specific boxes they were in and the carrier 
packed the boxes and prepared the inventory.  See American Van 
Services, Inc., B-249966, Mar. 4, 1993.  In this situation it would 
not be unreasonable for silver bowls to be packed with other 
decorative items such as crystal and pictures.  Furthermore, on the 
issue of damages this Office will not question the Army's 
determination regarding the degree of damage to the bowls in the 
absence of clear and convincing evidence that it acted unreasonably.  
American has presented no such evidence.

Accordingly, American's claim is denied, except for the $36.78 allowed 
by the Army.

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

1. Settlement Z-2862118, Apr. 11, 1995.