Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Yoda]

Just a couple of insurance points; first, as this appears to be an inside job, who at BW signed for the package, where was the package stored after delivery and who, if any, was told that something important looking was now being held, second, if there are no visible signs of forcible entry or break-in, then any employees involved with the package would become immediate suspects. I assume the police have investigated all this already.
Most transit policies are covered by an inland marine floater cover, normally on an all risk basis, including theft. I somehow doubt that ML has high enough limits for cover, unless they arranged a higher limit for this dumb shipment.
If the insurance company pays and the cards are recovered, then they take possession of them. That is a standard clause in virtually all property policies.
If the cards are not recovered then the carrier will subrogate against BW due to their negligence. The small statutory innkeepers liability limit will not protect BW in this case.
It will be fascinating to see how it all plays out. Of course, I have to wonder if ML can survive all of this; a bad hit to their rep, financial considerations and disgusted consignors, some of whom may take judicial action against ML.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Yoda

If the cards are not recovered then the carrier will subrogate against BW due to their negligence. The small statutory innkeepers liability limit will not protect BW in this case.

Explain how you come to this conclusion, please. My understanding is that subrogees are subject to all the same defenses as their subrogors. If there is an innkeepers' law that protects the hotel against a theft claim from the guest (subrogor), it also protects against the insurer (subrogee) who assumes the claim under an insurance contract.

[Peter_Spaeth]

2011 Ohio Revised Code
Title [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS - PROFESSIONS
Chapter 4721: INNKEEPERS
4721.03 Limit of liability as to certain property.

Universal Citation: OH Rev Code § 4721.03
The liability of an innkeeper whether person, partnership, or corporation, for loss of or injury to personal property placed in his care by his guests other than that described in sections 4721.01 and 4721.02 of the Revised Code, shall be that of a depositary for hire. Liability shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars for each trunk and its contents, fifty dollars for each valise and its contents, and ten dollars for each box, bundle, or package, and contents, so placed in his care, unless he has consented in writing with such guest to assume a greater liability.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2011 Ohio Revised Code
Title [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS - PROFESSIONS
Chapter 4721: INNKEEPERS
4721.03 Limit of liability as to certain property.

Universal Citation: OH Rev Code § 4721.03
The liability of an innkeeper whether person, partnership, or corporation, for loss of or injury to personal property placed in his care by his guests other than that described in sections 4721.01 and 4721.02 of the Revised Code, shall be that of a depositary for hire. Liability shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars for each trunk and its contents, fifty dollars for each valise and its contents, and ten dollars for each box, bundle, or package, and contents, so placed in his care, unless he has consented in writing with such guest to assume a greater liability.

I am no data scientist or nothing but if I do the math on that one...hang on a sec...Well anyway that is not much coverage but every dollar counts.

Based on the info that we have, this really sounds like liability to the consignors is with ML, the company, and not anyone else.

[Exhibitman]

Unless there is a baseball card exception or a written agreement between ML and BW to take on a $2mm liability, I am guessing that the hotel owners are not losing sleep over the possibility of being sued. Holding on to their wallets because they have a damn thief in the house, but still sleeping.

Oh, and I think it has gotten a bit lost in all of this, so let's say it again: whoever stole this stuff should be tossed in the can and forced to sort 1989 Donruss sets until he, she or they go blind.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2011 Ohio Revised Code
Title [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS - PROFESSIONS
Chapter 4721: INNKEEPERS
4721.03 Limit of liability as to certain property.

Universal Citation: OH Rev Code § 4721.03
The liability of an innkeeper whether person, partnership, or corporation, for loss of or injury to personal property placed in his care by his guests other than that described in sections 4721.01 and 4721.02 of the Revised Code, shall be that of a depositary for hire. Liability shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars for each trunk and its contents, fifty dollars for each valise and its contents, and ten dollars for each box, bundle, or package, and contents, so placed in his care, unless he has consented in writing with such guest to assume a greater liability.

You can tell that one hasn't been updated since the early 1900s.

[Yoda]

What you say is right, but what I was try to say is that the insurer will subrogate if if can be proven in a court of law that BW was legally negligent by not providing the due diligence necessary in their legal duty to protect guests and their property.
What I wonder, as I keep wandering around this scenario, is if the cards are recovered, after all the legal entanglements are settled, will the cards be returned to the consignors or will ML start a new auction? Maybe I need a new hobby.

[Yoda]

Inland marine or transit policies always provide coverage not only while in transit but also in storage for a limited period of time, usually 60 days.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Inland marine or transit policies always provide coverage not only while in transit but also in storage for a limited period of time, usually 60 days.

Not familiar with an Inland Marine policies but have seen a transit policy or two and none provided for coverage after the item was signed for. Interesting info however on the Inland Marine coverage that they will cover for up to 60 days after delivery.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Yoda

What you say is right, but what I was try to say is that the insurer will subrogate if if can be proven in a court of law that BW was legally negligent by not providing the due diligence necessary in their legal duty to protect guests and their property.
What I wonder, as I keep wandering around this scenario, is if the cards are recovered, after all the legal entanglements are settled, will the cards be returned to the consignors or will ML start a new auction? Maybe I need a new hobby.

ML has already said that they will basically give winning bidders right of first refusal at their winning price.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

ML has already said that they will basically give winning bidders right of first refusal at their winning price.

I also wonder if ML will remove the "sale" price from the auction of these cards in the future. As of now, they have not.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Most transit policies are covered by an inland marine floater cover, normally on an all risk basis, including theft.

And please explain this. It was not stolen in transit. Item was signed for and delivered. That is not in dispute per the article. Insurer is off the hook under the transit coverage.

Dunno about the rest of what you posted but like every big company in the hobby, this will be forgotten about and ML will be just fine. They are one of the best auction houses.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

And please explain this. It was not stolen in transit. Item was signed for and delivered. That is not in dispute per the article. Insurer is off the hook under the transit coverage.

Dunno about the rest of what you posted but like every big company in the hobby, this will be forgotten about and ML will be just fine. They are one of the best auction houses.

My policy doesn't cover merely "in transit" it basically covers anything that's not at our physical offices.

If I was in a car accident going to a show and the car burned to the tires. If I got distracted at a show and someone opened a showcase and lifted something. If I left something in a hotel room while going out for dinner. These are all scenarios I proposed and made sure were covered by my policy. Basically any time the cards are "off premises."

Now that coverage is a fraction of my total coverage, but I'm small potatoes compared to ML and my off premises coverage is $600k, I can't imagine ML isn't covered for over $2m even off premises.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

My policy doesn't cover merely "in transit" it basically covers anything that's not at our physical offices.

If I was in a car accident going to a show and the car burned to the tires. If I got distracted at a show and someone opened a showcase and lifted something. If I left something in a hotel room while going out for dinner. These are all scenarios I proposed and made sure were covered by my policy. Basically any time the cards are "off premises."

Now that coverage is a fraction of my total coverage, but I'm small potatoes compared to ML and my off premises coverage is $600k, I can't imagine ML isn't covered for over $2m even off premises.

Is it similar to the policy Lorewalker posted?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it similar to the policy Lorewalker posted?

Similar.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

My policy doesn't cover merely "in transit" it basically covers anything that's not at our physical offices.

If I was in a car accident going to a show and the car burned to the tires. If I got distracted at a show and someone opened a showcase and lifted something. If I left something in a hotel room while going out for dinner. These are all scenarios I proposed and made sure were covered by my policy. Basically any time the cards are "off premises."

Now that coverage is a fraction of my total coverage, but I'm small potatoes compared to ML and my off premises coverage is $600k, I can't imagine ML isn't covered for over $2m even off premises.

Right I get that but this box was left with the hotel, who is not part of ML. Your example is not the same. In your example, as the insured, you are in custody/possession or at least assumed responsibility for the valuables. The valuables were off premises but so was a ML representative. Nobody from ML was there for 3 days while the box sat there.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Right I get that but this box was left with the hotel, who is not part of ML. Your example is not the same. In your example, as the insured, you are in custody/possession or at least assumed responsibility for the valuables. The valuables were off premises but so was a ML representative. Nobody from ML was there for 3 days while the box sat there.

overnight at a show, or in my empty hotel room seem at least somewhat similar.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

overnight at a show, or in my empty hotel room seem at least somewhat similar.

I am sure one could argue and your carrier might even say you were partially liable.

If you left the stuff overnight at a show in unlocked cases, no body bag and knowing the show did not provide security at night, I think your claim could be denied.

Same for leaving stuff in your room. If the hotel knows you are there for the card show and you leave the stuff out in the open knowing employees have access to the room and you leave for a long period of time, your claim could be denied.

Bottom line is that the most reasonable safeguards possible must be used when valuables are on or off premises. I do not feel leaving the box at the front desk, essentially that has 2 million worth of cards and a rep who is not going to be there for days, rises to the level of safeguarding.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I am sure one could argue and your carrier might even say you were partially liable.

If you left the stuff overnight at a show in unlocked cases, no body bag and knowing the show did not provide security at night, I think your claim could be denied.

Same for leaving stuff in your room. If the hotel knows you are there for the card show and you leave the stuff out in the open knowing employees have access to the room and you leave for a long period of time, your claim could be denied.

Bottom line is that the most reasonable safeguards possible must be used when valuables are on or off premises. I do not feel leaving the box at the front desk, essentially that has 2 million worth of cards and a rep who is not going to be there for days, rises to the level of safeguarding.

Don't disagree with any of that. May well come down to the "reasonable man/care" idea.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I am sure one could argue and your carrier might even say you were partially liable.

If you left the stuff overnight at a show in unlocked cases, no body bag and knowing the show did not provide security at night, I think your claim could be denied.

Same for leaving stuff in your room. If the hotel knows you are there for the card show and you leave the stuff out in the open knowing employees have access to the room and you leave for a long period of time, your claim could be denied.

Bottom line is that the most reasonable safeguards possible must be used when valuables are on or off premises. I do not feel leaving the box at the front desk, essentially that has 2 million worth of cards and a rep who is not going to be there for days, rises to the level of safeguarding.

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. For example, my ACNA policy says this:

"We will not pay for “loss” or damage caused by or resulting from covered property being shipped by the insured via 1st class mail. However, items sent by any common carrier where a signature of receipt is required would not be subject to this exclusion."

If the carrier doesn't actually get a signature, the insurer cannot deny coverage if I shipped via a method that 'required' signature. The clause would have to state that the signature must be required and successfully obtained. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Insurer ponied up once I pointed this out and threatened a bad faith case.

[parkplace33]

I still can't get over the fact that ML sent over $2 million dollars worth of cards to a Best Western and held it there for 3 days before they picked them up.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I still can't get over the fact that ML sent over $2 million dollars worth of cards to a Best Western and held there for 3 days before they picked them up.

Best post in this thread 🏆

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

Best post in this thread 🏆

2nd that.....

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I still can't get over the fact that ML sent over $2 million dollars worth of cards to a Best Western and held it there for 3 days before they picked them up.

As I recall, the package was left in an "area" where the packages are left. I don't know if that was under the counter or in the small adjoining back room?

I did ask them about a "safe" upon check in as there was not one in the room I was told. They said they had one and i could leave my valuables with them. i wisely kept everything on my person for the entire trip.

I don't believe the "package" ever made it to the hotel safe or if they were asked to put it in the safe by ML? This was just what I "overheard" sitting in the lobby during the follow-up investigation on Saturday of the show.

[BeanTown]

On a side note, but relevant here. Does it really help an auction to realize higher prices for lots by displaying at shows? Everything is done via catalogs and websites for viewing items nowadays. Plus AHs that want to display items before a sale can have potential bidders come to their place to view items. I think shows are more like a “show and tell” and making statement they are viable. Wonder what the percentage of bidders from the last ML auction, were actually in attendance at the show where ML had stuff stolen at.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

As I recall, the package was left in an "area" where the packages are left. I don't know if that was under the counter or in the small adjoining back room?

I did ask them about a "safe" upon check in as there was not one in the room I was told. They said they had one and i could leave my valuables with them. i wisely kept everything on my person for the entire trip.

I don't believe the "package" ever made it to the hotel safe or if they were asked to put it in the safe by ML? This was just what I "overheard" sitting in the lobby during the follow-up investigation on Saturday of the show.

It might be the thief wasn't a BW+ employee, but a hobby-savvy person who was in town for the show, looking for opportunities to steal.

Perhaps a guest at the BW+. Maybe someone at Fedex who noticed the return address, or checked its tracking history and discovered its origination. Or a carpet cleaner, plumber, or other person who was there with their eyes open.

It would be interesting to know if ML puts its name on packages in the return address. That would be like a billboard advertisement to any hobbyist who might see the package.