BNUMBER: B-265689
DATE: February 22, 1996
TITLE: American Intercoastal Movers, Inc.-Claim for Reimbursement
of Amounts Collected by Setoff for Damage to Household Goods
**********************************************************************
Matter of:American Intercoastal Movers, Inc.-Claim for Reimbursement
of Amounts Collected by Setoff for Damage to Household Goods
File: B-265689
Date:February 22, 1996
DIGEST
1. When a case of prima facie case of carrier liability has been
established, the burden shifts to the carrier to prove that it was not
negligent and that the damage resulted from an excepted cause which
relieves it of liability. A mere statement that damage apparently
arose from heat or climatic conditions does not constitute such proof.
2. A carrier is not relieved of liability for damage to an item of
household goods merely because it was not able to inspect the item at
the time its inspector visited the owner's home.
DECISION
This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement[1] which
denied the claim of American Intercoastal Movers, Inc., (American) for
reimbursement of amounts collected by setoff for damage to a shipment
of household goods. We affirm the Claims Group's settlement.
American picked up the household goods of Senior Master Sergeant John
K. Keller, USAF (Retired), under government bill of lading UP-037,849
in Waldorf, Maryland, on February 26, 1991. The shipment was
delivered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on May 3, 1991. American
claimed reimbursement of $2,117.73, the amount collected by setoff for
damage to the shipment. The Claims Group denied American's claim
except for $245 which the Air Force offered to refund. In its appeal
American now disputes three items, for which it claims reimbursement
in the amount of $1,175.74.
The three disputed items are a dining table, a wall unit, and skis.
American attributes damage to the table and the wall unit to climatic
conditions or heat, for which it is not liable. American denies
liability for the skis because it was unable to inspect them.
A prima facie case of carrier liability is established by a showing of
tender of the goods to the carrier in a certain condition, delivery in
a more damaged condition, and the amount of damages. When a prima
facie case of liability has been established, the burden shifts to the
carrier to prove that it was free from negligence and that the damage
resulted from an excepted cause relieving the carrier from liability.
See Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 138
(1964).
In the present situation, the inventory indicates that the items in
question were tendered. Damage was observed at delivery or soon
thereafter, and the carrier was notified of the amount of damages.
Therefore, a prima facie case of carrier liability has been
established, and the burden is on American to rebut its liability.
Regarding the dining room table and wall unit at issue, the fact that
the veneer was cracking was noted at delivery. On DD Form 1840[2]
there is a notation that the damage was apparently caused by heat, and
American alleges that the cause was climatic change for which it is
not responsible. However, the Air Force Claims Analysis Chart for the
shipment lists the cause as water damage. American has not presented
any proof of its allegation that heat or climatic changes were
responsible other than a comment by its inspector. The Air Force
determined that the damage was transit-related and that American was
liable for it. Since American has not presented evidence to rebut its
liability, its claim as to those items is denied. See Allied
Intermodal Forwarding, Inc., B-261308, Nov. 9, 1995.
The Air Force Notice of Loss or Damage (DD Form 1840R) dispatched to
American on July 16, 1991, noted damage to a pair of skis (binding and
laminate separated) which had not been noted on the DD 1840 at time of
delivery. American denies liability, arguing that it was unable to
inspect them. The skis were not at the member's home when the
carrier's inspector visited to inspect the damaged goods in August
1991. The record does not indicate any other attempt by the carrier
to inspect the skis, nor is there any showing that the owner
intentionally denied the carrier's right to inspect.[3] Therefore, in
these circumstances, the carrier is not relieved from liability due to
lack of an inspection. See Continental Van Lines, Inc., B-215559,
Oct. 23, 1984; modified in part and affirmed in part by B-215559, Aug.
23, 1985.
American also argues that depreciated value of the skis is less than
the repair cost used by the Air Force in its collection action, but
has presented no evidence to support its argument. This Office will
not question an agency's determination as to the value of damage to
household goods in the absence of evidence that the agency acted
unreasonably. See Ambassador Van Lines, Inc., B-249072, Oct. 30,
1992. American has presented no such evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the Claims Group's settlement.
/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
1. Z-2868356(2), dated July 5, 1995.
2. Joint Statement of Loss or Damage at Delivery, apparently completed
at delivery on May 1, 1991.
3. The record indicates that the owner was not at home when the
carrier's inspector visited; the inspector was admitted to the
residence by the owner's son. The Air Force report notes that the
carrier has not shown that it aggressively protected its inspection
rights nor sought the assistance of the Air Force Claims Office in
arranging the inspection.