Shipping PSA: Paying for shipping-insurance doesn't get you shipping-insurance

[deckeda]

Had a well-packaged box arrive at its destination crushed and UPS disputed my proof it was indeed packaged properly. Zero payout, zero recourse. It's a racket, and the implication -- contract details or no --- that a shipper takes reasonable care means absolutely zero. You put cargo on a plane or in a truck; this isn't a huge challenge of accomplishment.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

Onamuji wrote:
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
UPS DOESN'T USE FORKLIFTS.

We've covered this before.

UPS freight uses forklifts, other UPS services use 3rd party contractors that employ forklifts and often packages get directed through freight or other channels as dictated by economics.

Ultimately, you cannot trust that your package will be exempt from their "drive a forklift through it" quotas.
If you were referring to UPS Freight, you should have specified as much.

EDIT: I see now that that the article does specify UPS Freight. Your excerpt, however, did not. I had only read your excerpt and not the entire article, hence my confusion.

That is a terrible shame about their sculpture.

[Acer]

silvarios wrote:
[quote=Acer]
I see your point, but to leave the value of the item undeclared in the paperwork was not a good idea. Contracts are funny that way.

Why not refund the paid insurance?
No argument here. Incomplete paperwork is incomplete paperwork. It goes both ways. The shipping company is arguing the insurance was technically never in effect, so they should refund the payment.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

Acer wrote:
[quote=silvarios]
[quote=Acer]
I see your point, but to leave the value of the item undeclared in the paperwork was not a good idea. Contracts are funny that way.

Why not refund the paid insurance?
No argument here. Incomplete paperwork is incomplete paperwork. It goes both ways. The shipping company is arguing the insurance was technically never in effect, so they should refund the payment.
They eventually did, as stated in the article.

[space-time]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=Acer]
[quote=silvarios]
[quote=Acer]
I see your point, but to leave the value of the item undeclared in the paperwork was not a good idea. Contracts are funny that way.

Why not refund the paid insurance?
No argument here. Incomplete paperwork is incomplete paperwork. It goes both ways. The shipping company is arguing the insurance was technically never in effect, so they should refund the payment.
They eventually did, as stated in the article.
I wonder if the shippement arrived OK, then the person who shipped this discovered he didn't enter the amount in the form and thus he never had coverage and asked UPS for a refund on the insurance fee, do you think UPS would issue a refund? I bet not, they would say we delivered your item without damange, move on. now when they make a mistake, they use every possible excuse to deny coverage.

[max]

UPS Freight is a totally different animal than most of the posts here.
It is an LTL common carrier and totally different laws apply, most based on the old rules when interstate carriers were a federally regulated industry.
Having said that, UPS is one of the worse outfit when it comes to handling claims. They just do not.
"Insufficient packaging" is the standard reply. Years ago we stopped using UPS when our loss ratio reached 50% for anything being handled by their Dallas hub. We get pretty good service with USPS, especially on international shipments, Fedex Ground on national.

The OP story is a perfect example of ignorance carrying a price.

If I was shipping a sculpture, or something irreplaceable I would use Fedex Specialized freight service, or something in that category....

[N-OS X-tasy!]

max wrote:
UPS Freight is a totally different animal than most of the posts here.
...
Having said that, UPS is one of the worse outfit when it comes to handling claims. They just do not.

Correct on both counts.

[Racer X]

Why don't people take the carriers to small claims court? (for these larger, but below $5k amounts)

I'd love to sit in on a session where UPS has to explain to a judge why the package was beat to a pulp, but UPS isn't financially liable. Every small claims court judge I have sat before would tear the carrier apart.

[Onamuji]

Racer X wrote:
Why don't people take the carriers to small claims court? (for these larger, but below $5k amounts)

I'd love to sit in on a session where UPS has to explain to a judge why the package was beat to a pulp, but UPS isn't financially liable. Every small claims court judge I have sat before would tear the carrier apart.

That'd be nice, but it's not so. The law is seriously f-ed up on that score.

UPS insists that they aren't common carriers. They use contracts of carriage filled with fine print to exclude them from every sort of liability imaginable. One of the things that this lets them get away with is a notice that any defect in the description of the item being shipped excludes them from all liability. They also limit the time in which a potential plaintiff can file a claim and where notice of claims can be filed (hint: nowhere convenient to you). They can even make the claimant file a bond for any costs that THEY have defending themselves.

These terms have been upheld by courts over and over again.

In most states, there have been dramatic reforms in regulations governing auto sales. For example, in New York a dealer has to keep text above a certain font size and keep contracts limited to one or two pages of a standard size. This drastically reduces the number of things that they can hide in the contracts - you can only fit so much in a 12-point font at 11x14.

We need similar reforms across a number of industries.

[Speedy]

Onamuji wrote: We need similar reforms across a number of industries.

Did you notice the results of the last election...