Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[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.

[Snapolit1]

Ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the drafter of the policy (i.e. the insurer) and in favor of coverage. Insurance Law 101.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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. 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. Carrier lost.

[Exhibitman]

Yep. That's why insurance policies can be incredibly prolix and require that a coverage lawyer be a bit of a masochist to willingly read all that crap.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

Very much appreciate the explanation. I assumed the burden would be on the insured so this is great to know. I have not taken insurance 101.

Adam, What is the insurer takes the position I was negligent by not taking steps to protect the valuables the best as I could while off premises and while in my possession? Does that language have to be included in the policy in order for them to deny a claim? I would think by my being irresponsible they could hold me at least partially liable for the loss or do they have to spell out that they will not cover the insured's negligence?

[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.....

[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.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

Do we know that it was in fact a Best Western Plus before the theft. The Plus could have been added after the heist.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

Methinks they should've used a Motel 6. They would have at least left the lights on....

[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.

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agree with that. It always struck me as advertising the AH for future consignments more than advertising the cards themselves.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by 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.

I’d guess having items on display helps attract consignors as much or more than attracting bidders.

I personally like seeing stuff I may be bidding on at the larger shows. Helps to see stuff in person and traveling to where the auction house is located isn’t super realistic for the majority of people/items.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by notfast

I’d guess having items on display helps attract consignors as much or more than attracting bidders.

I personally like seeing stuff I may be bidding on at the larger shows. Helps to see stuff in person and traveling to where the auction house is located isn’t super realistic for the majority of people/items.

+1. I think it helps sales and that is what it's all about. Maybe someone walking by an AH table sees something they have too, and want to sell. There are limitless scenarios when having consignments on display helps.

.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know first hand that there are people who inspect items I bring to shows in order to make bidding decisions. Now I'm not just bringing the top 30 or 40 single cards to shows I'm hauling a lot of stuff for multiple auctions around and trying to pick things that are important to see live like complete sets, or raw cards in addition to the big featured items. Of course we're hoping to attract consignors as well, but don't underestimate the impact on bidding of seeing something live

[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.