3 ms·

Is there any insurance that would pay for merchandise that Amazon destroyed because they determined that it's fake? Why would the insurance company take his sid

Is there any insurance that would pay for merchandise that Amazon destroyed because they determined that it's fake? Why would the insurance company take his side when they could just side with Amazon and save $1.5M? He can produce invoices that show he bought $1.5M of legit merchandise, but how can he prove that what he sent to Amazon was not fake?

vorpalhex 6y ago
He can show invoices that are over a year old. Which means that for at least a year, he held _at least_ two cargo containers of high end clothing somewhere before selling them in bulk on Amazon. He has no warehouses, no physical storefront, nothing - that doesn't strike you as strange for someone with 1.5M of merchandise? That is a _ton_ of merchandise both in terms of physical bulk and space, and in cost to have sitting around. Unless he's doing tens of millions of sales a year, that is way too much inventory to have at rest. Insurance could tell you nothing was ever covered and never spend a dime - but insurance is a heavily audited industry and at the very least they would do an investigation. Keep in mind, it's not like Amazon got in a few cargo containers of high end clothing and fed them into a shredder - they kept in a warehouse and sold it and got enough complaints about them not being genuine articles that they de-shelved them from inventory, gave him 30 days to retrieve them and only then after his refusal had them destroyed. For what it's worth, removing THAT much merchandising from shelving is a serious labor and time sink. You don't do that because you got one or two complaints about crushed boxes or off sizes. Which think of this in reverse - if Amazon told you that you needed to retrieve your $1.5M of merchandise in 30 days or it would be destroyed, would you just roll the dice on that? Even if you can't afford freight, you'd still go haul as much as you can in whatever you drive and hock it on the corner. The only reason you would let Amazon bulk destroy merchandise (with significant notice and several reminders from them, after signing a contract that pre-dictates out the terms of rejected merchandise), the only reason you would let merchandise sit like that, is if it has no significant value. When the cost of freight exceeds the cost of goods - then yeah, don't freight it and absorb the loss because it's less damage.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  The invoices for the particular product was a year old. But it could be the majority of that inventory was turning over every 90 days, which would mean he was selling 500k/month. >For what it's worth, removing THAT much merchandising from shelving is a serious labor and time sink. You don't do that because you got one or two complaints about crushed boxes or off sizes. The system is automated. A destroy order gets put in, then a warehouse employee goes and fulfils that order without knowing or caring why it was placed. Sellers can place destroy orders as well.
bawolff 6y ago
Why would insurance ever side with a person making a claim? It would be more cost effective to always deny claims regardless of legitimacy Answer: Because contracts and if the insurer breaches them courts get involved and penalties get handed out.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  "Insured claims that they shipped $1.5M of merchandise to Amazon. Amazon claimed merchandise was counterfeit and destroyed merchandise after given the insured multiple attempts to retrieve merchandise which were not acted on. In the absence of any evidence that the now destroyed goods were legitimate, we are denying compensation for this claim." He, of course, can try to sue his insurance company to pay the claim (happens all the time), but it's expensive and he's not guaranteed to win.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Indeed in this situation he's unlikely to win because he is pretty clearly in the wrong and his story is rediculous. My point is just that the insurance company can't just arbitrarily decide to side with amazon because they feel it (for that matter, amazon isn't really a party when it comes to the insurance) they have to look at the evidence and facts of the situation.
    - Johnny555 6y ago
      My point is that the last party to have had possession of his merchandise claimed it was counterfeit. The evidence is he shipped the merchandise to Amazon, Amazon said it was counterfeit and if he didn't product evidence to the contrary, they'd either destroy it or he could retrieve it, and he chose not to retrieve it. I really don't see why insurance would pay out under these circumstances.
      - didibus 6y ago
        I think OP means, if it's logical and correct for the insurance not to pay, it was probably logical and correct for Amazon to destroy it as well.

vorpalhex 6y ago

He can show invoices that are over a year old. Which means that for at least a year, he held _at least_ two cargo containers of high end clothing somewhere before selling them in bulk on Amazon. He has no warehouses, no physical storefront, nothing - that doesn't strike you as strange for someone with 1.5M of merchandise? That is a _ton_ of merchandise both in terms of physical bulk and space, and in cost to have sitting around. Unless he's doing tens of millions of sales a year, that is way too much inventory to have at rest. Insurance could tell you nothing was ever covered and never spend a dime - but insurance is a heavily audited industry and at the very least they would do an investigation. Keep in mind, it's not like Amazon got in a few cargo containers of high end clothing and fed them into a shredder - they kept in a warehouse and sold it and got enough complaints about them not being genuine articles that they de-shelved them from inventory, gave him 30 days to retrieve them and only then after his refusal had them destroyed. For what it's worth, removing THAT much merchandising from shelving is a serious labor and time sink. You don't do that because you got one or two complaints about crushed boxes or off sizes. Which think of this in reverse - if Amazon told you that you needed to retrieve your $1.5M of merchandise in 30 days or it would be destroyed, would you just roll the dice on that? Even if you can't afford freight, you'd still go haul as much as you can in whatever you drive and hock it on the corner. The only reason you would let Amazon bulk destroy merchandise (with significant notice and several reminders from them, after signing a contract that pre-dictates out the terms of rejected merchandise), the only reason you would let merchandise sit like that, is if it has no significant value. When the cost of freight exceeds the cost of goods - then yeah, don't freight it and absorb the loss because it's less damage.

ikeboy 6y ago
The invoices for the particular product was a year old. But it could be the majority of that inventory was turning over every 90 days, which would mean he was selling 500k/month. >For what it's worth, removing THAT much merchandising from shelving is a serious labor and time sink. You don't do that because you got one or two complaints about crushed boxes or off sizes. The system is automated. A destroy order gets put in, then a warehouse employee goes and fulfils that order without knowing or caring why it was placed. Sellers can place destroy orders as well.

bawolff 6y ago

Why would insurance ever side with a person making a claim? It would be more cost effective to always deny claims regardless of legitimacy Answer: Because contracts and if the insurer breaches them courts get involved and penalties get handed out.

Johnny555 6y ago
"Insured claims that they shipped $1.5M of merchandise to Amazon. Amazon claimed merchandise was counterfeit and destroyed merchandise after given the insured multiple attempts to retrieve merchandise which were not acted on. In the absence of any evidence that the now destroyed goods were legitimate, we are denying compensation for this claim." He, of course, can try to sue his insurance company to pay the claim (happens all the time), but it's expensive and he's not guaranteed to win.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Indeed in this situation he's unlikely to win because he is pretty clearly in the wrong and his story is rediculous. My point is just that the insurance company can't just arbitrarily decide to side with amazon because they feel it (for that matter, amazon isn't really a party when it comes to the insurance) they have to look at the evidence and facts of the situation.
  - Johnny555 6y ago
    My point is that the last party to have had possession of his merchandise claimed it was counterfeit. The evidence is he shipped the merchandise to Amazon, Amazon said it was counterfeit and if he didn't product evidence to the contrary, they'd either destroy it or he could retrieve it, and he chose not to retrieve it. I really don't see why insurance would pay out under these circumstances.
    - didibus 6y ago
      I think OP means, if it's logical and correct for the insurance not to pay, it was probably logical and correct for Amazon to destroy it as well.