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.