BNUMBER:  B-266119
DATE:  January 25, 1996
TITLE:  [Letter]

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

B-266119

January 25, 1996

Resource Protection
P.O. Box 3417
Tampa, FL  33601-3417

Attention:  Bobby Cates

Dear Mr. Cates:

This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1995, appealing 
the August 15, 1995, settlement of our Claims Group (Z-151685(93)) 
which denied your request for a refund of the $1,346.39 offset because 
of the loss or damage to the household goods of Keith E. Roberson 
under GBL No. SP-054,116 moved by Allied Van Lines, Inc.

The amount in question is the depreciated cost of recovering a 
loveseat and chair following damage by the carrier to a matching sofa 
which required the sofa's reupholstering.  Because the original fabric 
was no longer available, all three pieces of furniture were 
reupholstered in matching fabric.  

It is your contention that the loveseat and chair, which were 
undamaged, were still functional for the purpose for which they were 
originally purchased and therefore, the carrier should not have been 
liable for the reupholstery of these items.  You attempt to 
distinguish this situation from the facts of the cases cited in the 
agency's report where recovery was allowed for a new set of draperies 
although only one panel was damaged, and for a new suit of clothes 
although only the jacket was damaged, on the basis that draperies and 
a suit of clothes are constructed with the intent that they would be 
sold as an item or set.  You argue that the items of furniture in the 
present case are manufactured to be sold separately and it is only the 
personal taste of the purchaser that makes them a set.

We disagree.  Although perhaps the items of furniture could have been 
purchased separately, in this case they were purchased as a set so 
that the furniture in a room would match.  This was no longer possible 
because of the damage to the sofa and the lack of the original fabric.  
Such a consideration in the selection of a set of furniture appears to 
be of no lesser value than in the selection of draperies or a suit of 
clothes.  We have recognized that a property owner is entitled to 
recover the cost of such repairs or replacements that are necessary to 
restore him to the position he would have occupied had there been no 
loss or damage to the shipment.  National Claims Service, Inc., 
B-261292, Dec. 5, 1995.  In this case, the agency determined that this 
required reupholstering all three items of the set of furniture, and 
we see no reason to disagree.

Accordingly, we sustain the settlement of the Claims Group and deny 
the request for a refund of $1,346.39.

Sincerely yours,

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
B-266119
January 25, 1996
DIGEST

Where sofa is damaged and requires reupholstery and original fabric is 
no longer available, carrier is also liable for reupholstering 
matching loveseat and chair to return member to position he was in 
before damage occurred.