Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think they should make comments while an investigation is going on, but that is up to them.. Isn't that law 101? Or is that common sense 101?
.

It sounds like ML has communicated clearly and directly with all affected parties - which IS business critical. At this point they don't owe anyone else any explanations. I suspect as this unfolds more details will be made available to interested but unaffected (directly) parties.

For ML, Ryan and all other affected consignors and winning bidders, I am very sorry to hear about this and hope the thief is caught and cards recovered.

To all those who are offering could have, should have and would have scenarios I remind you that hindsight is 20/20 and "easy" to see looking back. As previously mentioned it sounds like this was standard business practice with little or no historical problem(s) and was covered by insurance. I suspect that practice will be scrutinized and possibly modified moving forward.

While I understand the question of running the auction with the knowledge that the cards weren't available, I also understand that it really was the best way to establish current fair market value for insurance purposes.

I have and know of others that in the past had issue with Fedex stealing cards and hope they are being investigated here as well. I think their $1,000 cap on "collectible" claims (it's in the fine print) leaves them ripe for incidents like this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by hcv123

It sounds like ML has communicated clearly and directly with all affected parties - which IS business critical. At this point they don't owe anyone else any explanations. I suspect as this unfolds more details will be made available to interested but unaffected (directly) parties.

For ML, Ryan and all other affected consignors and winning bidders, I am very sorry to hear about this and hope the thief is caught and cards recovered.

To all those who are offering could have, should have and would have scenarios I remind you that hindsight is 20/20 and "easy" to see looking back. As previously mentioned it sounds like this was standard business practice with little or no historical problem(s) and was covered by insurance. I suspect that practice will be scrutinized and possibly modified moving forward.

While I understand the question of running the auction with the knowledge that the cards weren't available, I also understand that it really was the best way to establish current fair market value for insurance purposes.

I have and know of others that in the past had issue with Fedex stealing cards and hope they are being investigated here as well. I think their $1,000 cap on "collectible" claims (it's in the fine print) leaves them ripe for incidents like this.

Counter point if it was to establish value: They allowed their customers to waste their time bidding on a make believe auction to maximize their own insurance recovery.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Counter point if it was to establish value: They allowed their customers to waste their time bidding on a make believe auction to maximize their own insurance recovery.

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

[Johnny630]

The Con is the continued theft that has recently occurred on-site at these major card shows. At every major show, you hear from dealers being theft victims of multiple expensive cards/many graded. The people doing this are not heroin junkies….they seem to know what they're doing…does not appear to be rank amateurs with little to no knowledge of the value and workings of this industry.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

Understood but is that the way it had to go down? We have many lawyers on this board, can we get an opinion? And no comments from ML doesn’t help this issue.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Understood but is that the way it had to go down? We have many lawyers on this board, can we get an opinion? And no comments from ML doesn’t help this issue.

As soon as I find a lawyer to offer his opinion I’ll let you know.

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As soon as I find a lawyer to offer his opinion I’ll let you know.

[G1911]

I learn a lot from card land. Now I can add that auctioning off items you don't have and cannot deliver on to my list of things that are actually okay!


I would think it is basic common sense that mailing $2M of fairly small and easily stolen product to a hotel to then hold for you is a bad idea. I would think it is common sense that then selling items you do not have and cannot deliver on is pretty sleazy at best.


If I went on the BST and auctioned a nice card, waited for it to end, and then said "Hey, this card was actually stolen from me before this and I said nothing. Thanks for the bids, I just wanted to price it for insurance" would this board say I handled the situation in the best possibly way? Hell no, I would get roasted for days at best

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by G1911

I learn a lot from card land. Now I can add that auctioning off items you don't have and cannot deliver on to my list of things that are actually okay!

Only if you're an auction house and it's for insurance purposes. If you're not insured, it's probably still frowned upon.

[Lobo Aullando]

Too good to take a backpack on a plane.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As soon as I find a lawyer to offer his opinion I’ll let you know.

Best post in a long time.

[steve B]

I would expect to see some of these being cracked out and sent for grading.
Slowly, and through different companies if they're smart, all at once and through the same company if they're not.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

Did the insurance company tell them that? If not, the argument about running them in the auction to establish value is bogus. Thousands of insurance claims are made every day, and fair market value is determined by appraisers and/or recent, comparable sales.

You don't have a collector who suffers flood damage to his collection say, "Gosh, my high-end cards are ruined. I'd better find an AH that will run phantom auction listings for me so I can determine what they were worth... "

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

That would be “interesting” insurance policy language if it required a fake auction to establish value or the recovery would be zero. If the items are covered there would be many alternatives to determine value that wouldn’t involve wasting customer time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That would be “interesting” insurance policy language if it required a fake auction to establish value or the recovery would be zero. If the items are covered there would be many alternatives to determine value that wouldn’t involve wasting customer time.

+1. I find it extremely difficult to believe the insurance policy requires a fake and fraudulent auction following a theft. Can anyone show an insurance policy like this? Please !

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. I find it extremely difficult to believe the insurance policy requires a fake and fraudulent auction following a theft. Can anyone show an insurance policy like this? Please !

+2

If insurance companies did this, pretty soon reputable AHs will start advertising their auctions as "Guaranteed Phantom-Free"

[Snowman]

All collectibles insurance policies have caps on the amount they will pay out for a claim for items shipped via FedEx et al. These limits are relatively low with respect to one's overall policy coverage limits. It's also why other auction houses use armored trucks to deliver high valued packages. I'd be surprised if ML is in fact covered should they indeed have to file the claim.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All collectibles insurance policies have caps on the amount they will pay out for a claim for items shipped via FedEx et al. These limits are relatively low with respect to one's overall policy coverage limits. It's also why other auction houses use armored trucks to deliver high valued packages. I'd be surprised if ML is in fact covered should they indeed have to file the claim.

Fed Ex did not lose the package. The question is coverage under an "away from premises" provision such as in the policy Lorewalker posted. Without knowing the policy language, or the course of dealings between the parties, we can only speculate. It may be that one or more posters here actually know.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All collectibles insurance policies have caps on the amount they will pay out for a claim for items shipped via FedEx et al. These limits are relatively low with respect to one's overall policy coverage limits. It's also why other auction houses use armored trucks to deliver high valued packages. I'd be surprised if ML is in fact covered should they indeed have to file the claim.

That is why there are riders to temporarily increase coverage under a policy for a certain event. And the coverage for what is being shipped will be mandated by the policy.

[Lorewalker]

It seems to me that liability would be with the hotel, who had to have agreed to hold the package while they waited for ML to check in a few days later. I feel it was poor judgement, at best by those at ML, who decided it was a good idea to do this. I doubt the hotel had the means to adequately protect the contents of the box.

I simply do not see a scenario where ML's ins carrier would cover the loss. It was delivered and signed for and it was delivered to someone who was not an agent of the company. Seems like an easy denial.

And although it is entirely at the bidders expense, letting the auction go seems to be the best approach to making sure you have a value on the loss. Hopefully the auction was run clean and there was no shill bidding on those lots.

Nobody wins here but this was easily avoidable.

[nolemmings]

Three issues pop out to me: 1) who is responsible/liable for the loss, i.e. which insurance policy(ies) is/are in play; 2) what is the extent of coverage under the policies-- not so much monetary amounts but the extent that exclusions apply; and, 3) what is the amount of monetary damage.

As for the last of these, it seems reasonable to have conducted the auction to establish current value, especially if many of the cards had not been in the market recently. I highly doubt any insurance company insisted on this format because value could be established in other ways. Rather it was in ML's best interest, as well as those who would receive compensation, to have the most recent pricing data available for the insurance claim. And it is just that-- a claim-- which the insurance companies can and (gasp) do dispute. They will no doubt investigate the bidding to look for irregularities or other signs of skullduggery, but assuming all went forward on the up and up, the final hammer prices are excellent evidence of value.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

It seems to me that liability would be with the hotel, who had to have agreed to hold the package while they waited for ML to check in a few days later. I feel it was poor judgement, at best by those at ML, who decided it was a good idea to do this. I doubt the hotel had the means to adequately protect the contents of the box.

I simply do not see a scenario where ML's ins carrier would cover the loss. It was delivered and signed for and it was delivered to someone who was not an agent of the company. Seems like an easy denial.

And although it is entirely at the bidders expense, letting the auction go seems to be the best approach to making sure you have a value on the loss. Hopefully the auction was run clean and there was no shill bidding on those lots.

Nobody wins here but this was easily avoidable.

I’m sure the hotel also has some terms limiting their liability in situations like this. Probably agree to them when booking a room.

[Leon]

One word of caution in this thread. The standard rule is going to apply. It's right above on every page. Be prepared to put your name or edit your post if it doesn't conform. Or you can edit out your comment, if you don't want to put your name next to it.

If you fail to, it will be edited and/or your name will be put under your id. Thanks for everyone's understanding.

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it.


.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by notfast

I’m sure the hotel also has some terms limiting their liability in situations like this. Probably agree to them when booking a room.

Yeah I would imagine and they were accepting a package for someone who was not even a guest at the time and not going to be a guest for 3 more days.

Again, to me this keeps coming back to horrible judgement by the auction house. And just because they did it without incident 20 times does not mean they should have ever done it at all.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Counter point if it was to establish value: They allowed their customers to waste their time bidding on a make believe auction to maximize their own insurance recovery.

1) If the cards are not recovered, yes, it will turn out to have been a waste of bidders time and emotional energy - incredibly frustrating. Though, if the cards are recovered, it will be very clear who gets what and for how much.

2) I think it is quite an exaggeration to call the auction "make believe". The auction was real. The cards are real. It is not a simple situation with no easy answers.

3) "To maximize their own insurance recovery" - this is really the most perplexing part of your comment - First and foremost - the insurance company needs substantiation of current market value for a claim. The Ty Cobb shown in this thread and presumably some of the other cards involved have very few and/or current sales - running the auction was really the best way to assess current fair market value - as an example the aforementioned Cobb sold for about $7K less than the last time it sold 3 years ago, indicating a lower current fmv than the last sale and reducing the amount that might otherwise have been claimed - in fact, lowering the insurance recovery. Up or down - the auction best reflects current fmv. While ML may get to keep whatever % they were entitled to on the sales, the lion's share of the proceeds I presume will be used to compensate consignors.