4 ms·

I don't really understand how the jewelers think they have any case for damages above the declared value of the merchandise. You can't purchase an insurance con

I don't really understand how the jewelers think they have any case for damages above the declared value of the merchandise. You can't purchase an insurance contract for your belongings that values them at $10k and then expect the insurance company to pay you $200k for them when your house burns down.

kelnos 3y ago
That was my reaction as well. I get that shipping and insuring expensive things is itself expensive, but that's life. You can't tell a shipper that your stuff is worth one amount, and then demand more if it's lost or damaged. I think the only case they might have is that security measures taken (regardless of declared value) were substandard. It does seem strange to me that it's considered ok to leave the truck essentially unattended; one driver sleeping inside while the other leaves to get food doesn't count as "attended" in my mind.
- setr 3y ago
  > I think the only case they might have is that security measures taken (regardless of declared value) were substandard I don’t see how it matters to the client though; the security measures could be entirely non-existent, but that’s why the insurance policy exists. The quality of security should only impact the rate at which insurance has to be paid out, so it’s already the insurance companies’ problem and really only impacts them
- roxgib 3y ago
  I don't think that makes a difference, because the shipping company has accepted liability for the stolen goods. The company looked at the value of the goods, and decided on these particular security measures, knowing they'd be on the hook if anything got stolen. Shit got stolen, and now they're paying up. You can't treat every shipment like it's the Mona Lisa, so if there's only $8.7 million of merchandise, you do the maths and optimise accordingly. Put another way, it was a business decision.

kelnos 3y ago

That was my reaction as well. I get that shipping and insuring expensive things is itself expensive, but that's life. You can't tell a shipper that your stuff is worth one amount, and then demand more if it's lost or damaged. I think the only case they might have is that security measures taken (regardless of declared value) were substandard. It does seem strange to me that it's considered ok to leave the truck essentially unattended; one driver sleeping inside while the other leaves to get food doesn't count as "attended" in my mind.

setr 3y ago
> I think the only case they might have is that security measures taken (regardless of declared value) were substandard I don’t see how it matters to the client though; the security measures could be entirely non-existent, but that’s why the insurance policy exists. The quality of security should only impact the rate at which insurance has to be paid out, so it’s already the insurance companies’ problem and really only impacts them
roxgib 3y ago
I don't think that makes a difference, because the shipping company has accepted liability for the stolen goods. The company looked at the value of the goods, and decided on these particular security measures, knowing they'd be on the hook if anything got stolen. Shit got stolen, and now they're paying up. You can't treat every shipment like it's the Mona Lisa, so if there's only $8.7 million of merchandise, you do the maths and optimise accordingly. Put another way, it was a business decision.