Shipper is responsible for insurance:Discussion

I used to work for a large trucking company, and I can tell you, things get damaged in transit. This is why buyers want insurance and the shipper should also want insurance on any item they ship. Our company had it's own insurance, or I should say, it was self insured, which certainly is under strict guidelines and the customer pays for it.

Dan is correct, that once an item is paid for, the item belongs to the purchaser. However, improper packaging is a fault of the shipper. Abuse to a package in transit, is the fault of the shipping company. This is where the problem lies. Who caused the problem? When it comes to a company parting with "Insured value" monies, blame is going to be placed on someone and they will end up paying for it, either directly, or through their insurance.

Elizabeth is exactly correct, the seller is responsible for taking care of the mess, if something goes wrong and the item gets damaged. This seems backwards, since the buyer is actually paying for the shipping, just look at any manifest (The buyer is actually the owner) but the carrier, like UPS, FedEx and USPS, require the shipper to make the claim and the payment for the insured item, will go to the shipper. It may be wrong and it is a hassle to the seller/shipper, but that is the way it is.

Unfortunately, I have had an experience with this, through FedEx and a pair of speakers that arrived damaged. The seller wasn't going to do anything and it took many calls and emails to get him off his behind to take care of it, but I was told by FedEx, the shipper is the one who will need to follow up, and he was going to receive any payment, if they decided the speakers were packaged properly. This is something that Dan touches on, but I feel that the seller is ultimately responsible for the packaging. It is an item that no longer belongs to him and it is in his/her charge. He didn't pack right, but did the right thing and return my money. He ended up eating the speakers, but that wasn’t my fault or FedEx.

I have been on the other side, with USPS and an expensive golf club. The postal worker broke a $500.00 driver into 4 pieces! The buyer told me of the condition imediately, since he was going on vacation with his new club, and I refunded his money. It took 4+ weeks to get the Post Office to give me the money, and then they wanted to give me less than it was insured for. That is a whole other kind of mess.... but that is for the insurance types to discuss.

My thinking is, the seller is responsible for the packaging and it is part of the "risk" that the seller incurs by selling and accepting payment for an item and then arranging shipping. It is a hassle if something goes wrong, agreed, but the shippers are going to hold the seller responsible for the claims and the packaging.

If a seller is saying, "I'm not going to be responsible for any shipping problems", or something to that effect, stay away. They are going to be a real problem for you, and this will make a bad situation even worse. No one wants damage to occur, but lets face it, we all live in the real world, and the shipping companies have it set up that the seller/shipper is the responsible party for the claims.

Dan makes a good point, in discussing the packaging with the seller. I agree; if it is an expensive or heavy item, pay for the proper packaging. But all sellers out there, be aware of the responsibility that the shipper is dropping on you, when you ship an item, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLAIMS. It may not be a fair world, but I’m sure you parents already told you that. There is risk in both buying and shipping.

Dan has the buyer / seller / insurer mixed up in his wording on some places. I agree that it is lacking in clarity but if one reads through the post and substitute's what they think should go there, you'll get the main points that he's trying to make.

As far as me having "luck" on a local basis, it has nothing to do with "luck" or being "local". I've had to muscle my way through all of my claims except for one and all of them have dealt with UPS' Texas location that handles claims. Sean
>

jaxz -

Relax. The header of this post is "DISCUSSION" which is just what I am doing, discussing, using my views and opinions. The insurance part is JUST A COMMENT, which I think is of value IN GENERAL.

I am not saying the seller is out scott-free once shipped.
Obviously the buyer and seller have to work together to resolve the situation accordingly. I simply disagree with above comments that the buyer should have the 'right' to decide if he or she wants to pursue insurance or receive a complete refund from the buyer. I feel BOTH parties need to work it out, and make the decision TOGETHER. I am not opposed to providing refunds to make the new owner whole, just don't feel it is their decision exclusively!

Hope this makes sense.....

Dan

SEAN!

Thanks for the clarity! Indeed I have the wrong buyer/seller mixed up, and it is pretty obvious once I read it again!

That is what happens when you only sleep 2 hours because you are so excited to get up and read AGON posts!! Sleep Dan, sleep!

Thanks, and sorry for the confusion!!

As I said Dan, your post was a bit confusing and I reacted on face value. Thanks for clearing up the mixing up of buyer and seller in your statements as that was where much of my confusion came from. Rest assured that I am quite relaxed though. I too am discussing the same subject and offering my points of view as well. I just happen to state them with a bit more emphatic emphasis, and they just don't happen to allign with yours, or what I interpretted as yours from the words you chose. I still don't understand what you were trying to point out by citing the fact that there are dishonest people in the world who conduct themselves immorally. It seems entirely beside the point to me.

Hifirush- your pointing out the black-letter chain of responsibility is all well and good, but the fact remains that actually getting the insurance companies to make good on their coverage is a major inconvenience, and a tremendous effort. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a ground-shipping insurance claim would likely attest to this. There certainly are exceptions, but they are few and far between these days. So the question remains, who should bear the burden and headache of making the claim. Though black-letter law may state that once the cash exchanged hands the item is the property of the buyer, I would strongly disagree that it should be the buyers burden to pursue a third-party insurance claim with a shipper. I believe that part of the contract that is implied, and I have no idea whether law actually supports this (and, per my previous post clearly don't give a rat's-a*& as far as my own opinion is concerned), is that the seller agrees to deliver to the buyer the item the buyer paid for in exactly the condition it is described. The seller should be responsible for third-party insurance claims, not the buyer. Yes, clearly it is the shipper who may be at fault and who ultimately is responsible(assuming the item is properly packed - and each shipper has pretty clear guidelines which specifically indicate what proper packing is to them), but it still will be an issue between seller and buyer as to who pursues the claim, and who has to wait for the money. Again, given the same damage-in-shipping scenario with a merchant selling an item to you I don't think any of us would hesitate a second to expect the merchant to make good on the purchase, even though, by your recitation of black-letter law, the actual item is the property of the buyer already in the exchange of funds. If we are acting as a seller, whether it is a one-time transaction, or 1000 transactions a year, we are still doing business selling goods by mail, and thus acting in the same capacity as the merchant. Why should we be held to different standards?

Marco