Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[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.