Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

That was my failed attempt at the point. It was done for their consignors. The house does not benefit at all from having done this.

I did raise the question the other day that Ryan and the house had already estimated the values of his consignments. Not sure if all 54 cards stolen were his but there was an agreement as to what they both felt the cards would sell for. I know that estimate prior to consignment being sent is not the same as the auctions having run their course but the house was not in total darkness about what those lots were worth. Turned out they were close to spot on. It begs the question if they really needed to leave the lots in there for valuation purposes.

Their valuations on specific lots were all over the map according to what Ryan posted, they just happened to work out in the aggregate. Not sure insurance is going to just accept a pre auction estimate either as you point out.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Their valuations on specific lots were all over the map according to what Ryan posted, they just happened to work out in the aggregate. Not sure insurance is going to just accept a pre auction estimate either as you point out.

I doubt they would take fake auction results either. If there is coverage.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I doubt they would take fake auction results either. If there is coverage.

“They” meaning the insurance company?

Or “they” meaning the consignors?

I suspect the consignors might be okay with using that valuation method.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by raulus

“They” meaning the insurance company?

Or “they” meaning the consignors?

I suspect the consignors might be okay with using that valuation method.

The insurance company, if there is one or more providing coverage.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I doubt they would take fake auction results either. If there is coverage.

Originally Posted by Carter08

The insurance company, if there is one or more providing coverage.

I thought one of the possible explanations for allowing the auction to continue with the stolen lots was to obtain a price for insurance purposes (whether or not proposed by the insurance company). Why do you think the insurance company wouldn't accept the auction results as legitimate values if there is no evidence of improper bidding?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I thought one of the possible explanations for allowing the auction to continue with the stolen lots was to obtain a price for insurance purposes (whether or not proposed by the insurance company). Why do you think the insurance company wouldn't accept the auction results as legitimate values if there is no evidence of improper bidding?

The policy language will drive everything but when there is an insured loss valuation is typically a hot button issue, often involving competing experts. The results of a fake auction or any recent auction could be a data point in one side’s arsenal but, depending on policy language, would probably not carry the day.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The policy language will drive everything but when there is an insured loss valuation is typically a hot button issue, often involving competing experts. The results of a fake auction or any recent auction could be a data point in one side’s arsenal but, depending on policy language, would probably not carry the day.

I know fraudulent and fraud are similar words, but if someone had a fake auction, but didn't take any payment(s) for anything, they didn't commit fraud, correct?