Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[SyrNy1960]

This thread started out in a straight line. This is how I feel now.

Will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

You won't get it, nor I do I believe a statement is coming out from ML. We only can speculate.

The bottom line for me is what I said earlier. An AH in 2024 ran an auction with cards that were stolen. I can't belive that.

I definitely won't get it, which is really the point. No insurance company works this way and everyone knows that, they can't use an example to put me in my place because there isn't one to use.

Just as we all know that if I did the exact same thing in the BST, not a single person would defend me (nor should they). I would almost certainly be banned (justly so) for doing the same thing. When a filthy plebe with the wrong ideas about consistently applied rules does it we would all know this is wrong. But lies and fraudulent auctions are just fine if they are run for the gain of the right people. This is precisely why this hobby will never be cleaned up - the corruption is a desired feature, not a bug.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

You won't get it, nor I do I believe a statement is coming out from ML. We only can speculate.

The bottom line for me is what I said earlier. An AH in 2024 ran an auction with cards that were stolen. I can't belive that.

You make it sound like they were deliberately trying to move stolen goods. Please.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You make it sound like they were deliberately trying to move stolen goods. Please.

Not saying that. I am saying that they auctioned off cards that were stolen and not in their possession at the time of the auction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Not saying that. I am saying that they auctioned off cards that were stolen and not in their possession at the time of the auction.

Some cards were stolen after they started an auction, and they made a decision to run the full auction to completion to simplify what otherwise could have been a litigious and complicated process of establishing values in case the cards were not recovered and compensation needed to be paid to consignors. Sure, one can fairly criticize that, but let's characterize it accurately.

[nolemmings]

Assuming the cards are not located soon and returned in the same condition, then there likely will be an insurance payout– my guess would be under multiple policies. It is interesting and a bit tricky as to what happens from there if the cards are recovered, particularly if this occurs ad hoc over time. As a general matter yes, the insurer who pays for the loss would be considered the owner entitled to possession once the cards are found. However, I would imagine that before any claim is paid, there will be a written understanding among all concerned regarding any rights to the cards. I can imagine there are myriad scenarios as to who has rights to buy, who must sell, and the process by which the card will be transacted. I would also think that the insurance company could assign its rights to someone for a price and be done with it. Again, a much cleaner process if the entire group is found at once and relatively soon, but a cluster**** if these cards pop up one or a few at a time over the next ten years.
Also keep in mind law enforcement’s role. It is my understanding that if these are recovered and held by law enforcement, the applicable agency may have rules regarding what it requires in the way of authorizations before it will release stolen property. Maybe not a problem by the end of the day for someone relieved to finally get his card, but another party to deal with nonetheless.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Adam stated it appeared to him to violate several consumer protection laws in CA to have run the auction. Ryan made it seem like ML was advised by a lawyer or the ins co to let the auction run. And lastly, Jeffrey, who seems to have some inside knowledge of this, agreed that it was necessary to let the auction run.

Lesson here is that mistakes are very hard to remedy sometimes.

I do not have firsthand knowledge that ML received legal advice specifically to keep the auction running. Nor do I have firsthand knowledge of their insurance policy or what the insurance company may or may not have said. I have been told that ML has spoken with counsel, has spoken with their insurance carrier (who apparently ML believes will cover at least some of this), and is listening to the police who are overseeing an open and ongoing investigation. This is exactly how I think a rational person/business would proceed under these circumstances.

Here is what I would do... The minute I learned that my customers' property was stolen (the consignors are the true customer of an AH), I would have called the police. I also would have called my lawyer, and, given the size of the potential loss, I would have called my insurance carrier. Considering all the moving parts here, I would have taken strongly the advice of those advising me, including the advice, if any, of potential stakeholders (i.e., this is what an insurance company would become if they pay out a claim). At the same time, I would have done damage control by reaching out to all consignors and affected bidders, giving them whatever assurances I could and giving them as much facts as I was able to give considering the ongoing investigation.

Is there a perfect answer here? Hell no. Its a shit show -- $$ Millions of cards were stolen from a box delivered to, and accepted by, a Best Western Plus. These cards were part of an auction that had already started. Plus, from what I have been told, the police were optimistic they could find the thief and the cards before the auction ended, or even still today. So what does one do in this situation? Personally, I would listen to and act on the advice of others, most specifically my counsel (who I would trust over Adam W's message board legal advice/conclusions), and that is what I believe (but do not know) ML has done and is doing.

Its very easy to sit here, after the fact, judging from the safety of one's keyboard, the actions taken and difficult decisions made by the auction house under these circumstances. Time will tell how this all shakes out, but using simple logic, I think most would conclude that any rational business would solicit and act on the advice of counsel, listen the police investigating the crime, and seek guidance from their insurance provider. It follows, letting the auction play out must have been done for a purpose and, at least somewhat, at the recommendation of others. Perhaps it was done under bad advice, or because they thought they would have the cards, or for insurance purposes, or some other reason(s). But they made the business decision to continue the auction, and I bet dollars to dimes that decision was made after many conversations and hours of consultation.

What I think is most interesting/telling is that Powell (a litigator) and Darryl, both of whom won cards that were stolen, and me, one of the larger consignors to the auctions whose cards were stolen -- so both sides of the coin (bidders and consignors) -- dont take issue with how ML has handled this thus far, Nor does Scott, who runs an auction house, nor Howard, who is a dealer, nor Jeff nor Peter, both litigators and very knowledgeable and vocal in this industry/hobby.

Opinions are like assholes, and I have (maybe am) one just like the rest of us. And we are all entitled to them. So that's mine.

Ryan Hotchkiss

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I do not have firsthand knowledge that ML received legal advice specifically to keep the auction running. Nor do I have firsthand knowledge of their insurance policy or what the insurance company may or may not have said. I have been told that ML has spoken with counsel, has spoken with their insurance carrier (who apparently ML believes will cover at least some of this), and is listening to the police who are overseeing an open and ongoing investigation. This is exactly how I think a rational person/business would proceed under these circumstances.

Here is what I would do... The minute I learned that my customers' property was stolen (the consignors are the true customer of an AH), I would have called the police. I also would have called my lawyer, and, given the size of the potential loss, I would have called my insurance carrier. Considering all the moving parts here, I would have taken strongly the advice of those advising me, including the advice, if any, of potential stakeholders (i.e., this is what an insurance company would become if they pay out a claim). At the same time, I would have done damage control by reaching out to all consignors and affected bidders, giving them whatever assurances I could and giving them as much facts as I was able to give considering the ongoing investigation.

Is there a perfect answer here? Hell no. Its a shit show -- $$ Millions of cards were stolen from a box delivered to, and accepted by, a Best Western Plus. These cards were part of an auction that had already started. Plus, from what I have been told, the police were optimistic they could find the thief and the cards before the auction ended, or even still today. So what does one do in this situation? Personally, I would listen to and act on the advice of others, most specifically my counsel (who I would trust over Adam W's message board legal advice/conclusions), and that is what I believe (but do not know) ML has done and is doing.

Its very easy to sit here, after the fact, judging from the safety of one's keyboard, the actions taken and difficult decisions made by the auction house under these circumstances. Time will tell how this all shakes out, but using simple logic, I think most would conclude that any rational business would solicit and act on the advice of counsel, listen the police investigating the crime, and seek guidance from their insurance provider. It follows, letting the auction play out must have been done for a purpose and, at least somewhat, at the recommendation of others. Perhaps it was done under bad advice, or because they thought they would have the cards, or for insurance purposes, or some other reason(s). But they made the business decision to continue the auction, and I bet dollars to dimes that decision was made after many conversations and hours of consultation.

What I think is most interesting/telling is that Powell (a litigator) and Darryl, both of whom won cards that were stolen, and me, one of the larger consignors to the auctions whose cards were stolen -- so both sides of the coin (bidders and consignors) -- dont take issue with how ML has handled this thus far, Nor does Scott, who runs an auction house, nor Howard, who is a dealer, nor Jeff nor Peter, both litigators and very knowledgeable and vocal in this industry/hobby.

Opinions are like assholes, and I have (maybe am) one just like the rest of us. And we are all entitled to them. So that's mine.

Ryan Hotchkiss

You replied to me but not sure all was intended for me. I have no stance on whether it was right or wrong to let the auction run. I think it is an interesting debate and I see both sides as having merit. I am not a bidder, consignor, auction house owner, law enforcement nor lawyer. It is a crappy situation and it is a damned if you do damned if ya don't circumstance.

My only judgement, which is really my opinion, was the decision by ML to ship 2 million dollars worth of cards to a motel where the true intended recipient was not due to show up for a few more days, was probably not the greatest idea they have had. The cards are secure at ML but not a motel front desk.

[Leon]

Nice post, Ryan. Well put. When I have stated things in my posts they have always been assumptions based on what I have read and been told. I have no first hand knowlege but definitely agree with that post. None of us except JP, and maybe some of his team, have first hand knowledge. All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Leon

All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

There has been laughter on the other side of the room, too.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice post, Ryan. Well put. When I have stated things in my posts they have always been assumptions based on what I have read and been told. I have no first hand knowlege but definitely agree with that post. None of us except JP, and maybe some of his team, have first hand knowledge. All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

It is an unfortunate situation but I think, for the most part, the discussion has been interesting. There are some passionate people posting their opinions as happens on many other threads where mysteries are involved. I suppose there might be more productive things we could all be doing rather than posting on this topic or laughing over the posts but at the end of the day, many threads are just guys with opinions posting them for others to read and comment on. This too shall pass...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice post, Ryan. Well put. When I have stated things in my posts they have always been assumptions based on what I have read and been told. I have no first hand knowlege but definitely agree with that post. None of us except JP, and maybe some of his team, have first hand knowledge. All of the crap that has been spewed in this thread has made me, as well as a few friends, laugh so hard (at what has been said, not the horrible situation) our sides have hurt...
.

Oh, both sides are getting quite a laugh. One at people expecting the same principles be applied to everyone, and the other for the contradictory and absurd insurance defense.

Still waiting for the refutation of said crap and a single example of this kind of insurance policy/demand/decision/pathway in all of human history.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

What I think is most interesting/telling is that Powell (a litigator) and Darryl, both of whom won cards that were stolen, and me, one of the larger consignors to the auctions whose cards were stolen -- so both sides of the coin (bidders and consignors) -- dont take issue with how ML has handled this thus far, Nor does Scott, who runs an auction house, nor Howard, who is a dealer, nor Jeff nor Peter, both litigators and very knowledgeable and vocal in this industry/hobby.

Ryan, I do appreciate your responses to this matter. But please don't take silence on the other side of the argument as acceptance at what happened.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I do not have firsthand knowledge that ML received legal advice specifically to keep the auction running. Nor do I have firsthand knowledge of their insurance policy or what the insurance company may or may not have said. I have been told that ML has spoken with counsel, has spoken with their insurance carrier (who apparently ML believes will cover at least some of this), and is listening to the police who are overseeing an open and ongoing investigation. This is exactly how I think a rational person/business would proceed under these circumstances.

Here is what I would do... The minute I learned that my customers' property was stolen (the consignors are the true customer of an AH), I would have called the police. I also would have called my lawyer, and, given the size of the potential loss, I would have called my insurance carrier. Considering all the moving parts here, I would have taken strongly the advice of those advising me, including the advice, if any, of potential stakeholders (i.e., this is what an insurance company would become if they pay out a claim). At the same time, I would have done damage control by reaching out to all consignors and affected bidders, giving them whatever assurances I could and giving them as much facts as I was able to give considering the ongoing investigation.

Is there a perfect answer here? Hell no. Its a shit show -- $$ Millions of cards were stolen from a box delivered to, and accepted by, a Best Western Plus. These cards were part of an auction that had already started. Plus, from what I have been told, the police were optimistic they could find the thief and the cards before the auction ended, or even still today. So what does one do in this situation? Personally, I would listen to and act on the advice of others, most specifically my counsel (who I would trust over Adam W's message board legal advice/conclusions), and that is what I believe (but do not know) ML has done and is doing.

Its very easy to sit here, after the fact, judging from the safety of one's keyboard, the actions taken and difficult decisions made by the auction house under these circumstances. Time will tell how this all shakes out, but using simple logic, I think most would conclude that any rational business would solicit and act on the advice of counsel, listen the police investigating the crime, and seek guidance from their insurance provider. It follows, letting the auction play out must have been done for a purpose and, at least somewhat, at the recommendation of others. Perhaps it was done under bad advice, or because they thought they would have the cards, or for insurance purposes, or some other reason(s). But they made the business decision to continue the auction, and I bet dollars to dimes that decision was made after many conversations and hours of consultation.

What I think is most interesting/telling is that Powell (a litigator) and Darryl, both of whom won cards that were stolen, and me, one of the larger consignors to the auctions whose cards were stolen -- so both sides of the coin (bidders and consignors) -- dont take issue with how ML has handled this thus far, Nor does Scott, who runs an auction house, nor Howard, who is a dealer, nor Jeff nor Peter, both litigators and very knowledgeable and vocal in this industry/hobby.

Opinions are like assholes, and I have (maybe am) one just like the rest of us. And we are all entitled to them. So that's mine.

Ryan Hotchkiss

hope it works out for ryan i have a lot of resdpect for this gentleman .whole issue stinks

[BeanTown]

Couple things that haven’t been mentioned yet. This could be the second largest theft behind the Met Museum theft, which took place over decades.

Very sad for Memory Lane, and all customers involved both as buyers and sellers.

If FedEx was used to ship the cards, what service did ML use? Overnight and 2 day air service only uses FEDEx employees and are ten times more secure. Ground service is outsourced and not all FEDEx employees are involved which makes a lot more riskier. Yes, I know the package was delivered to the hotel, but my point here is did ML take reasonable responsibility in shipping the box worth 2 million dollars and maybe there could be a percentage of fault going on here. When I read the packaged arrived early, how come it wasn’t timed to be delivered on the same day arrival by ML employees?

Another example would be if ML shipped the package directly to the show venue, a restaurant or even a friends house, would that change the scenario for responsibility?

I have no issue with the business decision ML made to run the auction and I’m pretty sure the insurance company, law enforcement and counsel all rendered their opinions and ML made the final call on how to proceed.

I would like to see the list of all items that were stolen by the scumbag perp(s) as items could start showing up on eBay, pawn shops, and even newspapers (if folks still sell cards in the want ads). I hope all the smaller card shops in the area are on high alert for items that were stolen.

I’m curious as to how the bidding played out, on all the ghost lots since insurance hopefully was involved. How many folks actually knew what was going on, or knew they were ghost lots.

As a buyer, many times I sell or consign items to pay for another auction winnings. So, this does effect folks as mentioned earlier about tapping 401ks or something along those lines.

Lastly, if insurance is paid out and the perps are found and court is done. The insurance company owns the cards, and they would do what with them? Offer back to ML for what the payout was? Use another auction company to recoup what they could from the payout? If this was the case… I hope we would all be posted as to when and where the auction was. I know many times I see some treasures found from the US marshals and other agencies and I wished I would have known about the sale.

I’ve read many great posts on this thread, it’s all speculation as we likely don’t know half the facts. As of now, I think Memory Lane, consigners, and buyers are all victims and I hope ML was prepared for the unthinkable to happen. Hopefully the hobby will be able to recoup everything stolen, and my hunch is over time that will occur. These cards do leave finger prints, as each one is unique.

[ricktmd]

I also agree with Ryan. ML made the best of a terrible situation and is taking the high road by paying consignors and not waiting for the insurance companies to settle the matter. I doubt many other Auction Houses would reach in their pockets to pay consignors. I use Memory Lane and think they are top shelf. If they let the auction run and didn't pay the consignors or took money from bidders that would be another story. They did what they had to and protected their consignors and bidders both. As far as the winning bidders not being able to get the items they won (or pay anything), if it were me I would think it is not that big a deal as no money was lost.

If the cards are not found very soon it will likely be a battle between insurance companies. Memory Lanes insurance company is not going to just roll over and pay when the liability is with the Hotel. I highly doubt (as stated in this post by others) that the tag in the room relating to liability of property belonging to guests is equally applied to owners of the hotel holding valuable property for a future guest that they signed for. I am an investor in hotels similar to this and for sure the hotel has liability and will look to their insurance carrier (assuming they have an appropriate policy)

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

That was a good one! Thanks for the laugh.

[Exhibitman]

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

Now that was the laugh I was looking for!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never with cards but with items in the 5 figure range the insurance company owned the items after they paid me off. Have no idea what they did with them afterwards.

It used to get strange sometimes. A friend in HS wrecked his car. Insurance totalled it. Insurance paid.
Never asked him about the car which was at his house, or even the title.
After a couple months his dad called them asking when they might take their car out of the yard.
"We don't want that thing! Just scrap it. "
"Ok, since you own it can you just send me that in writing"

They did. The car got fixed, and sold. It didn't take much damage to total a Chevette.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it similar to the policy Lorewalker posted?

Similar.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 🏆

[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.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

Best post in this thread 🏆

2nd that.....

[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.

[Carter08]

People questioning whether an auction house should ship millions of dollars of goods to a Best Western and should continue to auction of items it no longer possesses is considered laughable? Wow. This is crazy town.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Carter08

People questioning whether an auction house should ship millions of dollars of goods to a Best Western and should continue to auction of items it no longer possesses is considered laughable? Wow. This is crazy town.

How many times does this need to be repeated!!!????

It was a Best Western Plus!!!

Not just any old ratty Best Western.

HUGE DIFFERENCE. Get it straight, people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think anyone is defending the shipping decision.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think anyone is defending the shipping decision.

Fair. Questioning the second part is certainly up for debate. I personally tend to doubt the police or counsel would take a strong position that a fake auction must continue. Either way, it’s certainly debatable as to how to handle the terrible situation.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

People questioning whether an auction house should ship millions of dollars of goods to a Best Western and should continue to auction of items it no longer possesses is considered laughable? Wow. This is crazy town.

Of course. You see, whether an action is right or wrong is entirely about who gains and not any consistent standard or common sense or legality. Fraudulent auctions are just fine if the right people make money, and anyone who questions how the excuses given make absolutely no sense at all and how nobody would agree with this if someone they didn't like was doing it is a laughable problem.

It's crazy town if one is reasonable or expects consistency, business as normal for the fraud supporters.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Seven

This is perhaps one of the most interesting things to me, but again this is assuming a lot. I have no dog in this race, I'm a lower level collector that makes less in a year than some of these cards go for in an auction. All that being said the only way I would think the Insurance company would pay out, correct me if I'm wrong, is if there was next to zero chance of the cards being recovered. If they suddenly are what exactly happens to them? I doubt the insurance company wants a bunch of old pre-war cards. Do they auction them off?

Yes, the insurance company would just turn around and auction them off again if they were to take ownership by paying out on a claim and then later recovering the assets.

But I'd wager good money that they won't be consigning them to Memory Lane lol

[sb1]

In my limited (1 time) experience with CIA insurance and a package stolen by a postal employee, where we were made whole by the insurance company. About, six months later I discovered one of the cards on ebay, they recovered the cards and we were offered the items back at the same price that we were previously paid out. We just repaid them what they had previously paid out to us and they sent the cards back.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sb1

In my limited (1 time) experience with CIA insurance and a package stolen by a postal employee, where we were made whole by the insurance company. About, six months later I discovered one of the cards on ebay, they recovered the cards and we were offered the items back at the same price that we were previously paid out. We just repaid them what they had previously paid out to us and they sent the cards back.

IF I recall correctly, it was 2 cards and the seller auctioning them on ebay got them from the thief, who was a postal employee!


Sorry to get off subject. The whole ML theft situation is just sad. At the end of the day I think more people will give better consideration to the who, how and when, of shipping really valuable things. The older we get the more expensive the lessons can be.

Did I ever mention about my restaurant debacle? It was expensive.
.

[mannequin1]

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?