Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2018/01/02) */ We assigned file #XXXXXXXXXThis claim was investigated and subsequently denied due to the fact that no damage was noted on the bill of lading at final delivery to the consigneeWe have no liability for any damages reported after the fact additionally, this was a used item and the toolbox was full of tools with no key to lock drawers creating a very dangerous shipping situation We will not be making any payment on this claim
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2018/01/19) */ Hello, STI has agreed to pay the claimant $to settle the claimA check will be issued on 2/9/ Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 8, 2018/01/19) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I am pleased that CRST/STI has agreed to compensate me for the total repair costs of the hidden damage to my motorcycleIt does show that STI is not implacableI consider the matter closed with a fair and equitable outcome
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/10/12) */ Attached is the letter of claim denial and the signed bill of lading with damages noted at the time of shipping Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2016/10/13) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I do not accept their responseThey damaged my motorcycle during transport and are refusing to pay for the damageI am out [redacted] for the deductible on my own insurance companyThe damage has now caused my motorcycle to lose equity if I should decide to sell itMy insurance rates will likely increase because of thisMy insurance has paid for this, and they were not responsible Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2016/10/13) */ The motorcycle was tendered to STI with multiple damages noted, including damages the customer is claimingNo new damages were recorded at time of delivery as evidenced by the shipping bill of lading which has been provided to [redacted] ***Our denial of this claim remains
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2017/04/26) */ This claim was settled at [redacted] of the claimed amount and this will be our maximum settlementThe damage noted at delivery was not found until after unpacking and is classified as concealed damageThe customer submitted a claim to STI because part of the instructions for this account are that our delivery agent opens and inspects every piece before deliveryThe delivery agent did not do this as the instructions did not appear in the order screen during the time period in which the shipment took placeInstead the freight delivered to the customer and at that time was unpacked and damaged foundThere is no evidence that STI caused this damage as we were not the only carrier to transport this shipment and damage was concealedWe issued a settlement of [redacted] in good faith to the customer and also returned the shipment to the claimantThe claimant refused the shipment stating it was completely destroyed and has not cashed the check trying to force STI into a higher paymentThere is no basis for full payment of this claim as damage was noted as concealedWe have communicated this to the customer in attached email trail but she has failed to accept the settlement
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2015/05/29) */
Contact Name and Title: Teresa Marketing Manager
Contact Phone:
Contact Email: ***@crst.com
This claim has been reviewed by our management team and we have paid the amount we are responsible for per the bill of lading
The disposal of product is not part of STI liability for damages
OFFER:
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/07/25) */
STI received a claim for damages from company Into the West on 5/The claim was for a *** repair to two chairs which we had delivered on several months earlier on 3/9/We had no record anywhere of any issues and no damage was noted on
the bill of lading, the primary legal document in the transport of any shipment
The shipment delivered on 3/to the residence and no issues were recorded on the bill of ladingThey signed the bill of lading in a small box with the language "DELIVERY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: all listed services were rendered and the property described has been received in apparent good condition except as noted on other shipping documents." There were no other notations of damage on the supplement shipping documents
The claim had been presented with no evidence of any carrier liability and was therefore denied
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/08/08) */
STI transported this motorcycle and one other motorcycle and assigned tracking number *** The motorcycle in question was picked up from the shipper on 5/27/with multiple cosmetic damages noted on the visual inventorySee enclosedThe
motorcycle delivered to consignee on 6/2/and no damages or issues were notedCustomer then reported damages to fork tube covers on 6/3/The claim was subsequently denied as damage was not noted at time of deliveryCustomer has submitted a rebuttal alleging the damage was hiddenBy the customer's own admission, the damage was not visible upon visual inspectionSTI maintains that any such damage would not have been visible to our driver either at time of pick up on 5/As it is not possible to determine if this damage was present at time of shipping or at time of delivery (due to the fact that damage was not documented on the visual motorcycle inventory) we will make an offer of settlementIn good faith we will offer a settlement for *** of the claimed amount or ***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/08/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The Kawasaki Vaquero was purchased new in It has approximately miles onI pride myself to have my bike in mint condition and take great care of all of my possessions At no time while the motorcycle has been in my possession has it ever been shipped, crated or towedMy collection of photographs of the motorcycle prior to shipping along with notating the areas that specifically stood out as damage did not include photographs of the fork tubes as they were not damaged, nor could they haveSuch damage can only occur through improper strapping during transport
During delivery I was not allowed access into the back of the truck to inspect the bike in its "as shipped" conditionmeaning completely strapped and still on a palletHad the freight company been more forthcoming about allowing me access to the motorcycle while it was still on a pallet and strapped, I would have been able to review and further document the shipping straps well under the fairing compressing both fork tubes, thus creating the damage that has occurred
When I inspected the bike, I cross checked against the information I had provided, along with my photographs, and made the conclusion that everything was okaybased on what I was allowed to seeI now question why I was not allowed full access and wonder if it was to obstruct exactly what I was able to see when I fully inspected the bike laterIn good faith I trusted the assurance, that my bike would be handled properly during transport and did NOT imagine, that a specialty shipper would be so unprofessional and improperly secure my VERY well cared for bike to the pallet
The two employees of the shipping company did not provide any explanation as to how the bike was strapped to a pallet, nor was I provided any additional information regarding the securing process prior to shipmentIf I had, I would have thoroughly inspected all obstructed areas, specifically the area in question, since that is completely inadequate and securing of a motorcycle to a pallet
The damage to this motorcycle is hidden and due to improper handling of my motorcycle by the freight companyAs soon as I had the opportunity to thoroughly inspect the bike, I contacted the freight company to have them to fulfill their responsibility and deliver the bike to me in exactly the condition they received itThere is no argument here about good faith or negotiations about a shared cost of repairsMy motorcycle was in near perfect condition when I handed it over for transport and every minor damage to the bike was thoroughly documented and disclosed prior to transportAll I ask, is that the bike is returned to the exact same condition it was when I handed it to STI
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2016/09/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Today at 7:AM
FACT:
There was no pre-existing damage to the fork tubes of my bikeI disclosed any and all previous damages with picturesThere were no pictures of the tube, since they were in perfect condition when I handed you the bikeHad I known how badly you would handle my property, I would have taken a minute movie, highlighting every nook and cranny
FACT:
You (STI) received my bike with said disclosuresThe disclosure of said damages was accepted by you
FACT:
The damage in question can only happen while a bike is strapped downIn this case IMPROPERLYYou know that!
FACT:
You (STI) neglected to provided proper documentation that you did NOT damage my bike during transportWhere are the pictures backing up your claim, you properly transported my bike? Where are the pictures showing the bike on the palette inside the truck?
FACT:
You (STI) are a specialty transportation company and as such, Ithe customerhave to be able to trust your proper handling of my bike during transport
FACT:
The fact, that I did not immediately discover this concealed damage to my bike, does NOT give you (STI) the right to walk away from your responsibility to deliver the bike in EXACTLY the same condition you handed it to me
FACT:
Your delivery team did not allow me to see the bike strapped down, nor was I allowed to see inside the truckWhy, I now wonder? So I could not see, how badly you were handling my property? I would have made that damage known immediately
Your company and your practices are a disgrace to the logistics communityAll I am asking for is to have my bike in EXACTLY the condition it was before you damaged itThere is no good-will negotiationYour staff did not properly handle my bikePlease do, what is right and repair what you broke
I shall and will continue to fight for what is right and will share my experience with the communityYou should not be allowed to handle another person's precious belongings if you cannot live up to your part of your contractual agreement
I will not accept your offer and your bullying attempt to silence my complaint, by simply issuing a check for *** of the repair costHow dare you treat your customer like this!
I am an honest and forthright manYou apparently are not!
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2016/09/14) */
STI's position on this matter remains unchangedWe have issued a payment in the amount of *** Check number #XXXXXXXX was mailed to him on 9/9/We have done our best to reach an amicable settlement with this customerThis file has now been closed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/10/02) */
Contact Name and Title: Lyndsay *** Superviso
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: ***@crst.com
Please see timeline of events:
8/25/17- customer’s motorcycle was delivered to customer’s home whereupon he signed for
and inspected the delivery as evidenced by the bill of lading and descriptive inventory (appendix A)
9/20/17- customer’s mailed claim submission arrived at our office
9/21/17- customer’s claim acknowledged via email
9/22/17- claim reviewed, temporary denial letter sent to customer via US mailHe had submitted a request for repairs that exceeded our liability and the damages noted at transfer of custody on 8/We requested amended repair estimate (appendix B)
This is a cargo claimThis is not an insurance claimWe are a transportation companyCustomer purchased transit coverage which is NOT insuranceWe do not have a field of adjusters or appraisersThis claim would not be handled in the same manner as an auto insurance claimCustomer needs to submit an amended repair cost for those damages noted at delivery which includes the headlight/bracket assembly, front fender and rear fender (reference Appendix A)Customer’s claim for $is not supportedWe do not accept liability for the plethora of damages documented by HD appraisal (see copy of repair estimate in Appendix C) but not noted at time of transfer of custody to customer on 8/All damages in a cargo claim must be noted on the bill of lading to be considered validThis is standard procedure within all transportation carriers
While there are certainly damages caused during transit that STI will take full responsibility for we will not pay for repairs to the numerous parts listed on the repair estimate but delivered in good condition as supported by the shipping documentsRepair estimate includes replacement of parts that were absolutely visible at time of delivery (ie inner fairing, right and left saddlebags, front forks, engine guard, windshield)Since no damage was noted to these parts of the motorcycle and not reported to us for nearly a month we will not accept liability for those repairsWe respectfully ask that the claim be amended to actual damages noted at deliveryWe will complete processing of the claim at that time
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/09/05) */
STI was contracted to transport a motorcycle from Butte, Montana to Tacoma, WA. Our transit dates for picking up the motorcycle were give as 7/31/17 – 8/4/17. We picked up the bike on 8/4/17. Our transit dates for delivery were 8/9/17 –...
8/11/17. We delivered the motorcycle on 8/11/17. We do not complete this transit in three days. Bike was both picked up and delivered within the time line as promised.
STI’s contract is not with consumer. It is with company called V2 Logistics who is our customer. I do not know what was communicated to consumer by V2 however STI completed shipment as we were contracted by V2. Additionally, the shipper listed on the bill of lading was V2 logistics % Shawn, Ryan or Chris. We were not provided any contact name of “Andrew.†The shipping address provided was 34 Olympic Way which is the address of Copper Canyon Harley Davidson.
STI does not offer “insurance†so the assertion that $10,000.00 insurance is misleading, at best. STI, like most carriers, offers excess valuation which simply means that in the case that any claim is approved it will be paid out at a higher rate than the released liability published in our Tariff. In this case, a claim for damage to this motorcycle would be settled at maximum $.60/lb. Mr. [redacted] purchased excess valuation which makes the released liability of $.60/lb null and void. Instead, $10,000.00 coverage is applied to the shipment for a premium. Consignee still has a responsibility to note any changes in the condition of the motorcycle.
Mr. McNeil drove to our Tacoma warehouse and picked up the motorcycle on 8/11/17. The bike was stored in a shipping warehouse which is equipped with standard overhead lighting. Mr. McNeil was asked at that time to sign two standard documents that accompany every single motorcycle shipment- a shipper’s bill of lading and a visual motorcycle inventory complete with diagrams of the motorcycle in which the consignee may note any changes to condition of the motorcycle. The language directly below the signature line on the bill of lading states “DELIVERY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: all listed services were rendered and the property described has been received in apparent good condition except as noted on other shipping documents.†The bill of lading is signed “[redacted].†See appendix A below.
The visual motorcycle inventory was also signed by [redacted]. The inventory contains two columns. The column on the left indicates condition of the motorcycle at time of shipping. The motorcycle was described as “scratched, soiled and marred.†The diagrams on the left column indicate areas of deficiency on the rear left panel and front left fairing of the motorcycle. The column on the right side of this document is for the consignee to note any changes in condition to the motorcycle. There were no exceptions listed by [redacted] when he signed this document. See appendix A below.
At the point of signing these two required documents, the custody of the motorcycle was transferred to Mr. [redacted] who removed it from our warehouse.
Six days later on 8/17/17 we received notification of damage to the front fender. A claim file was opened and we assigned file #650172519. The shipping documents as described above were reviewed. Additionally, we found no internal damage reports to have been completed during transit by any of our warehouses. In short, there was no evidence to support the claim submitted by Mr. [redacted]. No proof existed that would confirm that the dent in the front fender occurred while this motorcycle was in the custody of CRST Specialized Transportation. A denial letter and copies of the shipping documents were subsequently mailed to the claimant.
On 8/29/17 we received a rebuttal to Mr. McNeil’s claim. We maintained our position.
Mr. [redacted] responded “see you in court.†He then followed up with another email, “I will also be sending a letter to the Revdex.com, with a full description of the details and our correspondence. Also statements from witnesses at the pick up point and the delivery point, the conditions at the time of pick by me. I will be including all details related to the cost and insurance I paid and the time it took to deliver to me, and that the bike was tampered with during shipping. I am also going to go online and make sure I let others know what to expect from the shipping company and its claims department. Fairness is owning up to your mistakes and making things right, not telling the customer, owell to bad.â€
We have been alerted by our HR Department that Mr. [redacted] is writing several comments on social media detailing his experience. We maintain that we apply the same rules to all shipments, regardless if they are motorcycles or not. Damage absolutely must be noted on the shipping documents.
STI’s denial of this claim remains.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/09/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIER RESPONSE, THEY ARE LIARS AND SCAM ARTISTS. I NEVER SIGNED ANYTHING, AND NEVER RECIECVED A SO CALLED VISUAL INVENTORY SHEET OF THE BIKE? AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY ATTACHMENTS I NEVER SIGNED ANYTHING SOMEONE OBVIOULY FORGED THESE DOCUMENTS. I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THE PUBILC UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT WORTHY OF THEIR BUSINESS. I HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS COUNTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINTS THIS SHIPPING COMPANY. THE BIKE WAS TAMPERED WITH AND DAMAGED IN THEIR CARE AND THEY KNOW IT. THEY CAN STICK TO THEIR SO CALLED POLICY AND I WILL STICK TO MY INTEGRITY AND MY WORD. THE WORST COMPANY ON THE ROAD TODAY.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2017/09/13) */
Mr. [redacted]’s verified signature is seen on the [redacted] bill of sale. This signature matches the signature on our inventory and bill of lading. See appendix A. We vehemently deny accusations of forgery.
If this damage had just been noted at delivery we would not be having this conversation. We do not “know†we damaged this motorcycle as the consumer alleges; claims here are honored rourtinely when a change in condition is noted on the shipping documents. Mr. [redacted] failed to do this. We are not going to issue any settlement on this claim. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the claimed damage occurred in our custody.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2018/01/02) */
We assigned file #XXXXXXXXX. This claim was investigated and subsequently denied due to the fact that no damage was noted on the bill of lading at final delivery to the consignee. We have no liability for any damages reported after the fact....
additionally, this was a used item and the toolbox was full of tools with no key to lock drawers creating a very dangerous shipping situation.
We will not be making any payment on this claim.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/11/09) */
Hello, please see below which has been sent to customer directly. Please also reference a copy of the delivery receipt below in which the only damage noted is a damaged power cord. The customer’s claim for full loss is not supported:
Shon:...
In regards to your claim filed for damaged power supply we have verified with the driver no damage was seen regarding the power cord at initial loading and the power cord was enclosed in the shrink wrap to the machine. (STI reference #1888214). When the machine was loaded for delivery (STI reference #188218) the power cord was still shrink wrapped to machine with no external damage to the machine and cord. But in good will I have contacted 1-800 Vending and provided them the picture of damaged cord sent with your claim. Courtney Putnam @1-800 Vending advised this is the power supply between the entrée and vending machine and if damaged would probably cause the machine to not function properly if at all. Therefore 1--800 Vending offered to send a replacement cord to you at no cost and was shipped November 7, 2017. The cord should arrive November 10, 2017 and below they have provided detail on shipping of the cable for your reference/tracking purposes.
In regards to the storage cost you had mentioned for self-storage ($150.00) these are not covered as part of cargo liability. STI will close your claim unless further support of damage is supplied as outlined in email from me 11/7/17 but we are hopeful the power supply replacement will resolve any further issues.
Thank you so much for your patience in review of your claim as CRST values your trusting us with your transportation needs!!
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2017/11/20) */
Checked several technicians within a 50-me radius, no one is able to repair the vending unit. I am continueing to pay storage fees for an inoperable bending machine.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2017/11/21) */
-Customer [redacted] was sent a replacement power cable. This is confirmed delivered by UPS. Tracking number and confirmation is:
[redacted]
Delivered:
[redacted] VA 22315 on November 14, 2017 at 12:38 pm
-Per manufacturer of vending machine installation of new power cord is simple and a ten minute process.
STI has no liability beyond replacing this power cord as it was the only damage documented at time of delivery
We have closed this claim.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2018/01/08) */
The shipping documents were reviewed as well as interviews conducted with both the driver who picked this up in VA and the driver who delivered this in MI. We also spoke to the warehouse manager of the Detroit hub. We obtained photos taken prior...
to shipping by our driver as he was on site at the shipper in Virginia Beach.
The claim for the chipped chrome molding on the right saddlebag was honored in full.
The customer also submitted a claim for gouges to the engine case of the motorcycle which is located on the lower left side. Although this damage was not noted on the inspection sheet before shipped we were able to see these damages in the photos provided to us by our driver on site in Virginia Beach. See Exhibit A. As evidenced in these photos the motorcycle was tendered to us at the time of day when there was no daylight left. The driver was forced to inspect the motorcycle in the dark. We believe this is the reason that this damage was missed on the inspection sheet. The driver at origin reports he was not given the key but he was told it was in the saddlebag. He stated to the shipper that STI does not allow items to be shipped with motorcycle (covers, personal items, titles, keys, etc.) and that if the shipper chose to tender the key to us we were not responsible for it. Driver states he did NOT verify mileage at time of shipping. The key must be in the ignition to see the mileage readout. The key was in the saddlebag at time of tender to us. Additionally, to address customer's contentions about the communication he received as the shipment progressed, we would like to state that none of these special requests were ever communicated to STI by the broker AA Transport. It is not our standard practice to call customer while at the shipper's.
The motorcycle was then transported through our network to our Detroit distribution center, the warehouse that services final destination Rochester, MI.
The motorcycle was tendered to Mr. [redacted] The delivery driver denies any memory of recording any mileage on the inspection sheet. He stated that the customer wrote the mileage in both the origin and destination sections at the same time while in Rochester. It does appear to be the same handwriting. See Exhibit B. My [redacted] states he did not write this either.
In any case, there is no proof that we rode the motorcycle. The motorcycle was transported through a secure network travelling from the shipper to our Richmond warehouse, transferring to a truck to be moved to Columbus, transferring to a second truck for transit to Detroit, and then finally loaded onto a delivery truck.
Mr. [redacted] submitted a claim for two substantiated costs- repairs to the molding ($100.) and repairs to the engine case ($2365.40). Customer also requested $48.00 reimbursement for U-Haul trailer rental. We issued a check for the repairs to the molding based on evidence showing this was new damage. We did not issue a check for the repairs to the engine case based on the photo we obtained from time of shipping in Virginia Beach showing preexisting damages to this area of the motorcycle. We also did not issue reimbursement for the U-Haul rental. The damages claimed were cosmetic and did not necessitate transport via U-Haul trailer. Mr. [redacted] did not request any specific monetary compensation for the miles that were allegedly added to his vehicle. STI denies culpability in this matter and has issued no reimbursement for this issue. Additionally, in response to the customer's point, we would like to add that STI does not offer insurance with any shipment that is moved thru our company. We do offer excess valuation which can be purchased by the customer. This means that in the case of any damage that is caused by the carrier, payment will not be limited to the standard released liability of $.60/lb. It does not mean that all claims are covered in full. There are certainly other parameters that must be met. In this case, we declined payment on the damages which were present before time of shipping and before any contract with $5,000.00 excess valuation was in effect.
STI has paid those portions of the claim for which we can determine carrier liability. We maintain the original ruling on this cargo claim and will not make any further offers for compensation.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/04/26) */
RESPONSE:
We have reviewed and investigated this claim thoroughly. Claim was submitted to STI for repairs to the following areas:
-front fender and nameplates
-engine guard
- fork covers and reflectors
-handlebars
-outer...
fairing
-rider footboard
-passenger footboard
We determined that there was damage to the fender, forks, engine guard, and handlebars which was caused by incorrect strapping and securing of the motorcycle. This damage was noted at the time of delivery and marked on the delivery receipt as “front loose, fairing bar strapped incorrectly. Origin agent strapped incorrectly to fairing bar, broke weld causing damage to front fender.†Please see enclosed copy of delivery receipt for your reference (Exhibit A). We approved the portion of the customer’s claim related to what was written on the delivery receipt. We then began to investigate the damage to the outer fairing and footboards. We obtained photos taken by our driver at time of shipping in AZ. The photos were taken in front of the home where we picked this motorcycle up, prior to loading the motorcycle on the truck. I confirmed this by comparing the photos to those of the address available on Google streetview (Exhibit B). The photos obtained from our AZ warehouse were taken before we ever handled this motorcycle at all. I was able to view the passenger [redacted] and see that the same “damage†was present before shipping. This damage however is more accurately described as wear and tear. This motorcycle is a 2012 model. The footboards show some discoloration that is present in the photos taken before shipping and there is no evidence to support this portion of the customer’s claim. Additionally, no mention of footboard damage was made on the delivery receipt. I have included these photos for your review as well (Exhibit C). We therefore disallowed this portion of the customer’s claim.
The final part of the claim was a request for repair to the left outer fairing which had been rubbed on the edge where the outer fairing meets the inner fairing. This damage was also not marked at time of delivery when the custody of the motorcycle was transferred to the consignee on 3/30. I later discovered that the motorcycle was taken from the residence where STI had delivered it to and moved to Iron Valley Harley Davidson several days later. On 4/5 we received notification of the claim and this was the first indication that any part of the outer fairing had been damaged. We obtained approximately 10 photos taken by the delivery driver, all photos focused on the strap related damage only. There were no photos of any damaged outer fairing.
We therefore approved partial claim settlement of [redacted] in accordance with the repair estimate from Iron Valley HD for repairs to the following parts only:
-front fender and nameplates
-engine guard
- fork covers and reflectors
-handlebars
One other source of contention with this customer is that there are apparently two copies of the origin inventory. This inventory is completed at time of shipping by our driver and the shipper. It serves to document the condition of the motorcycle prior to shipping. I have enclosed a copy for your review below (Exhibit D). STI’s copy contains a few notations that do not appear on the customer’s copy. I do not know why the two copies do not match exactly. I was able to look at the photos we took prior to loading the motorcycle and determine there were a few minor cosmetic issues, mostly due to age of motorcycle so I can confirm it was not in pristine condition. Additionally, these exceptions marked on STI’s copy of the inventory are not part of any claimed damage to the motorcycle from Mr. [redacted] so I do not consider this issue of different inventories to be relevant to the resolution of this claim.
STI has settled this claim for all transit damage which was marked at time of delivery. We have disallowed payment on the portions of this claim which were either not transit related or not marked at delivery. We consider this settlement to be full, final and fair in light of the condition of the motorcycle as noted on the shipping documents which are used to document condition of the motorcycle at transfer to the consignee. We cannot account for the motorcycle’s handling between the day of delivery 3/30/17 and the date of the estimate from Iron Valley HD which was 4/5. We therefore have received no evidence to show that STI is liable for the rub to the outer fairing.
Exhibit A:
/3
Exhibit B:
Photo our AZ driver took compared to Google Streetview. Confirmation that photos were taken before ever moving this bike or loading on our truck.
Exhibit C:
Photos our AZ driver took, minor cosmetic deficiencies visible in photo have been circled in red.
Exhibit D:
Comparison of customer copy of origin inventory versus STI copy of origin inventory, differences highlighted in yellow
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2018/01/19) */
Hello, STI has agreed to pay the claimant $485.00 to settle the claim. A check will be issued on 2/9/18.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 8, 2018/01/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I am...
pleased that CRST/STI has agreed to compensate me for the total repair costs of the hidden damage to my motorcycle. It does show that STI is not implacable. I consider the matter closed with a fair and equitable outcome.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/04/26) */
This claim was settled at [redacted] of the claimed amount and this will be our maximum settlement. The damage noted at delivery was not found until after unpacking and is classified as concealed damage. The customer submitted a claim to STI because...
part of the instructions for this account are that our delivery agent opens and inspects every piece before delivery. The delivery agent did not do this as the instructions did not appear in the order screen during the time period in which the shipment took place. Instead the freight delivered to the customer and at that time was unpacked and damaged found. There is no evidence that STI caused this damage as we were not the only carrier to transport this shipment and damage was concealed. We issued a settlement of [redacted] in good faith to the customer and also returned the shipment to the claimant. The claimant refused the shipment stating it was completely destroyed and has not cashed the check trying to force STI into a higher payment. There is no basis for full payment of this claim as damage was noted as concealed. We have communicated this to the customer in attached email trail but she has failed to accept the settlement.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/10/12) */
Attached is the letter of claim denial and the signed bill of lading with damages noted at the time of shipping.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/10/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the...
business.)
I do not accept their response. They damaged my motorcycle during transport and are refusing to pay for the damage. I am out [redacted] for the deductible on my own insurance company. The damage has now caused my motorcycle to lose equity if I should decide to sell it. My insurance rates will likely increase because of this. My insurance has paid for this, and they were not responsible.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/10/13) */
The motorcycle was tendered to STI with multiple damages noted, including damages the customer is claiming. No new damages were recorded at time of delivery as evidenced by the shipping bill of lading which has been provided to [redacted]. Our denial of this claim remains.
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2018/01/02) */ We assigned file #XXXXXXXXXThis claim was investigated and subsequently denied due to the fact that no damage was noted on the bill of lading at final delivery to the consigneeWe have no liability for any damages reported after the fact additionally, this was a used item and the toolbox was full of tools with no key to lock drawers creating a very dangerous shipping situation We will not be making any payment on this claim
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2018/01/19) */ Hello, STI has agreed to pay the claimant $to settle the claimA check will be issued on 2/9/ Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 8, 2018/01/19) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) I am pleased that CRST/STI has agreed to compensate me for the total repair costs of the hidden damage to my motorcycleIt does show that STI is not implacableI consider the matter closed with a fair and equitable outcome
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/10/12) */ Attached is the letter of claim denial and the signed bill of lading with damages noted at the time of shipping Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2016/10/13) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I do not accept their responseThey damaged my motorcycle during transport and are refusing to pay for the damageI am out [redacted] for the deductible on my own insurance companyThe damage has now caused my motorcycle to lose equity if I should decide to sell itMy insurance rates will likely increase because of thisMy insurance has paid for this, and they were not responsible Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2016/10/13) */ The motorcycle was tendered to STI with multiple damages noted, including damages the customer is claimingNo new damages were recorded at time of delivery as evidenced by the shipping bill of lading which has been provided to [redacted] ***Our denial of this claim remains
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2017/04/26) */ This claim was settled at [redacted] of the claimed amount and this will be our maximum settlementThe damage noted at delivery was not found until after unpacking and is classified as concealed damageThe customer submitted a claim to STI because part of the instructions for this account are that our delivery agent opens and inspects every piece before deliveryThe delivery agent did not do this as the instructions did not appear in the order screen during the time period in which the shipment took placeInstead the freight delivered to the customer and at that time was unpacked and damaged foundThere is no evidence that STI caused this damage as we were not the only carrier to transport this shipment and damage was concealedWe issued a settlement of [redacted] in good faith to the customer and also returned the shipment to the claimantThe claimant refused the shipment stating it was completely destroyed and has not cashed the check trying to force STI into a higher paymentThere is no basis for full payment of this claim as damage was noted as concealedWe have communicated this to the customer in attached email trail but she has failed to accept the settlement
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2015/05/29) */
Contact Name and Title: Teresa Marketing Manager
Contact Phone:
Contact Email: ***@crst.com
This claim has been reviewed by our management team and we have paid the amount we are responsible for per the bill of lading
The disposal of product is not part of STI liability for damages
OFFER:
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/07/25) */
STI received a claim for damages from company Into the West on 5/The claim was for a *** repair to two chairs which we had delivered on several months earlier on 3/9/We had no record anywhere of any issues and no damage was noted on
the bill of lading, the primary legal document in the transport of any shipment
The shipment delivered on 3/to the residence and no issues were recorded on the bill of ladingThey signed the bill of lading in a small box with the language "DELIVERY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: all listed services were rendered and the property described has been received in apparent good condition except as noted on other shipping documents." There were no other notations of damage on the supplement shipping documents
The claim had been presented with no evidence of any carrier liability and was therefore denied
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/08/08) */
STI transported this motorcycle and one other motorcycle and assigned tracking number *** The motorcycle in question was picked up from the shipper on 5/27/with multiple cosmetic damages noted on the visual inventorySee enclosedThe
motorcycle delivered to consignee on 6/2/and no damages or issues were notedCustomer then reported damages to fork tube covers on 6/3/The claim was subsequently denied as damage was not noted at time of deliveryCustomer has submitted a rebuttal alleging the damage was hiddenBy the customer's own admission, the damage was not visible upon visual inspectionSTI maintains that any such damage would not have been visible to our driver either at time of pick up on 5/As it is not possible to determine if this damage was present at time of shipping or at time of delivery (due to the fact that damage was not documented on the visual motorcycle inventory) we will make an offer of settlementIn good faith we will offer a settlement for *** of the claimed amount or ***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/08/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The Kawasaki Vaquero was purchased new in It has approximately miles onI pride myself to have my bike in mint condition and take great care of all of my possessions At no time while the motorcycle has been in my possession has it ever been shipped, crated or towedMy collection of photographs of the motorcycle prior to shipping along with notating the areas that specifically stood out as damage did not include photographs of the fork tubes as they were not damaged, nor could they haveSuch damage can only occur through improper strapping during transport
During delivery I was not allowed access into the back of the truck to inspect the bike in its "as shipped" conditionmeaning completely strapped and still on a palletHad the freight company been more forthcoming about allowing me access to the motorcycle while it was still on a pallet and strapped, I would have been able to review and further document the shipping straps well under the fairing compressing both fork tubes, thus creating the damage that has occurred
When I inspected the bike, I cross checked against the information I had provided, along with my photographs, and made the conclusion that everything was okaybased on what I was allowed to seeI now question why I was not allowed full access and wonder if it was to obstruct exactly what I was able to see when I fully inspected the bike laterIn good faith I trusted the assurance, that my bike would be handled properly during transport and did NOT imagine, that a specialty shipper would be so unprofessional and improperly secure my VERY well cared for bike to the pallet
The two employees of the shipping company did not provide any explanation as to how the bike was strapped to a pallet, nor was I provided any additional information regarding the securing process prior to shipmentIf I had, I would have thoroughly inspected all obstructed areas, specifically the area in question, since that is completely inadequate and securing of a motorcycle to a pallet
The damage to this motorcycle is hidden and due to improper handling of my motorcycle by the freight companyAs soon as I had the opportunity to thoroughly inspect the bike, I contacted the freight company to have them to fulfill their responsibility and deliver the bike to me in exactly the condition they received itThere is no argument here about good faith or negotiations about a shared cost of repairsMy motorcycle was in near perfect condition when I handed it over for transport and every minor damage to the bike was thoroughly documented and disclosed prior to transportAll I ask, is that the bike is returned to the exact same condition it was when I handed it to STI
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 14, 2016/09/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Today at 7:AM
FACT:
There was no pre-existing damage to the fork tubes of my bikeI disclosed any and all previous damages with picturesThere were no pictures of the tube, since they were in perfect condition when I handed you the bikeHad I known how badly you would handle my property, I would have taken a minute movie, highlighting every nook and cranny
FACT:
You (STI) received my bike with said disclosuresThe disclosure of said damages was accepted by you
FACT:
The damage in question can only happen while a bike is strapped downIn this case IMPROPERLYYou know that!
FACT:
You (STI) neglected to provided proper documentation that you did NOT damage my bike during transportWhere are the pictures backing up your claim, you properly transported my bike? Where are the pictures showing the bike on the palette inside the truck?
FACT:
You (STI) are a specialty transportation company and as such, Ithe customerhave to be able to trust your proper handling of my bike during transport
FACT:
The fact, that I did not immediately discover this concealed damage to my bike, does NOT give you (STI) the right to walk away from your responsibility to deliver the bike in EXACTLY the same condition you handed it to me
FACT:
Your delivery team did not allow me to see the bike strapped down, nor was I allowed to see inside the truckWhy, I now wonder? So I could not see, how badly you were handling my property? I would have made that damage known immediately
Your company and your practices are a disgrace to the logistics communityAll I am asking for is to have my bike in EXACTLY the condition it was before you damaged itThere is no good-will negotiationYour staff did not properly handle my bikePlease do, what is right and repair what you broke
I shall and will continue to fight for what is right and will share my experience with the communityYou should not be allowed to handle another person's precious belongings if you cannot live up to your part of your contractual agreement
I will not accept your offer and your bullying attempt to silence my complaint, by simply issuing a check for *** of the repair costHow dare you treat your customer like this!
I am an honest and forthright manYou apparently are not!
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2016/09/14) */
STI's position on this matter remains unchangedWe have issued a payment in the amount of *** Check number #XXXXXXXX was mailed to him on 9/9/We have done our best to reach an amicable settlement with this customerThis file has now been closed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/10/02) */
Contact Name and Title: Lyndsay *** Superviso
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: ***@crst.com
Please see timeline of events:
8/25/17- customer’s motorcycle was delivered to customer’s home whereupon he signed for
and inspected the delivery as evidenced by the bill of lading and descriptive inventory (appendix A)
9/20/17- customer’s mailed claim submission arrived at our office
9/21/17- customer’s claim acknowledged via email
9/22/17- claim reviewed, temporary denial letter sent to customer via US mailHe had submitted a request for repairs that exceeded our liability and the damages noted at transfer of custody on 8/We requested amended repair estimate (appendix B)
This is a cargo claimThis is not an insurance claimWe are a transportation companyCustomer purchased transit coverage which is NOT insuranceWe do not have a field of adjusters or appraisersThis claim would not be handled in the same manner as an auto insurance claimCustomer needs to submit an amended repair cost for those damages noted at delivery which includes the headlight/bracket assembly, front fender and rear fender (reference Appendix A)Customer’s claim for $is not supportedWe do not accept liability for the plethora of damages documented by HD appraisal (see copy of repair estimate in Appendix C) but not noted at time of transfer of custody to customer on 8/All damages in a cargo claim must be noted on the bill of lading to be considered validThis is standard procedure within all transportation carriers
While there are certainly damages caused during transit that STI will take full responsibility for we will not pay for repairs to the numerous parts listed on the repair estimate but delivered in good condition as supported by the shipping documentsRepair estimate includes replacement of parts that were absolutely visible at time of delivery (ie inner fairing, right and left saddlebags, front forks, engine guard, windshield)Since no damage was noted to these parts of the motorcycle and not reported to us for nearly a month we will not accept liability for those repairsWe respectfully ask that the claim be amended to actual damages noted at deliveryWe will complete processing of the claim at that time
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/09/05) */
STI was contracted to transport a motorcycle from Butte, Montana to Tacoma, WA. Our transit dates for picking up the motorcycle were give as 7/31/17 – 8/4/17. We picked up the bike on 8/4/17. Our transit dates for delivery were 8/9/17 –...
8/11/17. We delivered the motorcycle on 8/11/17. We do not complete this transit in three days. Bike was both picked up and delivered within the time line as promised.
STI’s contract is not with consumer. It is with company called V2 Logistics who is our customer. I do not know what was communicated to consumer by V2 however STI completed shipment as we were contracted by V2. Additionally, the shipper listed on the bill of lading was V2 logistics % Shawn, Ryan or Chris. We were not provided any contact name of “Andrew.†The shipping address provided was 34 Olympic Way which is the address of Copper Canyon Harley Davidson.
STI does not offer “insurance†so the assertion that $10,000.00 insurance is misleading, at best. STI, like most carriers, offers excess valuation which simply means that in the case that any claim is approved it will be paid out at a higher rate than the released liability published in our Tariff. In this case, a claim for damage to this motorcycle would be settled at maximum $.60/lb. Mr. [redacted] purchased excess valuation which makes the released liability of $.60/lb null and void. Instead, $10,000.00 coverage is applied to the shipment for a premium. Consignee still has a responsibility to note any changes in the condition of the motorcycle.
Mr. McNeil drove to our Tacoma warehouse and picked up the motorcycle on 8/11/17. The bike was stored in a shipping warehouse which is equipped with standard overhead lighting. Mr. McNeil was asked at that time to sign two standard documents that accompany every single motorcycle shipment- a shipper’s bill of lading and a visual motorcycle inventory complete with diagrams of the motorcycle in which the consignee may note any changes to condition of the motorcycle. The language directly below the signature line on the bill of lading states “DELIVERY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: all listed services were rendered and the property described has been received in apparent good condition except as noted on other shipping documents.†The bill of lading is signed “[redacted].†See appendix A below.
The visual motorcycle inventory was also signed by [redacted]. The inventory contains two columns. The column on the left indicates condition of the motorcycle at time of shipping. The motorcycle was described as “scratched, soiled and marred.†The diagrams on the left column indicate areas of deficiency on the rear left panel and front left fairing of the motorcycle. The column on the right side of this document is for the consignee to note any changes in condition to the motorcycle. There were no exceptions listed by [redacted] when he signed this document. See appendix A below.
At the point of signing these two required documents, the custody of the motorcycle was transferred to Mr. [redacted] who removed it from our warehouse.
Six days later on 8/17/17 we received notification of damage to the front fender. A claim file was opened and we assigned file #650172519. The shipping documents as described above were reviewed. Additionally, we found no internal damage reports to have been completed during transit by any of our warehouses. In short, there was no evidence to support the claim submitted by Mr. [redacted]. No proof existed that would confirm that the dent in the front fender occurred while this motorcycle was in the custody of CRST Specialized Transportation. A denial letter and copies of the shipping documents were subsequently mailed to the claimant.
On 8/29/17 we received a rebuttal to Mr. McNeil’s claim. We maintained our position.
Mr. [redacted] responded “see you in court.†He then followed up with another email, “I will also be sending a letter to the Revdex.com, with a full description of the details and our correspondence. Also statements from witnesses at the pick up point and the delivery point, the conditions at the time of pick by me. I will be including all details related to the cost and insurance I paid and the time it took to deliver to me, and that the bike was tampered with during shipping. I am also going to go online and make sure I let others know what to expect from the shipping company and its claims department. Fairness is owning up to your mistakes and making things right, not telling the customer, owell to bad.â€
We have been alerted by our HR Department that Mr. [redacted] is writing several comments on social media detailing his experience. We maintain that we apply the same rules to all shipments, regardless if they are motorcycles or not. Damage absolutely must be noted on the shipping documents.
STI’s denial of this claim remains.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/09/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIER RESPONSE, THEY ARE LIARS AND SCAM ARTISTS. I NEVER SIGNED ANYTHING, AND NEVER RECIECVED A SO CALLED VISUAL INVENTORY SHEET OF THE BIKE? AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY ATTACHMENTS I NEVER SIGNED ANYTHING SOMEONE OBVIOULY FORGED THESE DOCUMENTS. I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THE PUBILC UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT WORTHY OF THEIR BUSINESS. I HAVE FOUND NUMEROUS COUNTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINTS THIS SHIPPING COMPANY. THE BIKE WAS TAMPERED WITH AND DAMAGED IN THEIR CARE AND THEY KNOW IT. THEY CAN STICK TO THEIR SO CALLED POLICY AND I WILL STICK TO MY INTEGRITY AND MY WORD. THE WORST COMPANY ON THE ROAD TODAY.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2017/09/13) */
Mr. [redacted]’s verified signature is seen on the [redacted] bill of sale. This signature matches the signature on our inventory and bill of lading. See appendix A. We vehemently deny accusations of forgery.
If this damage had just been noted at delivery we would not be having this conversation. We do not “know†we damaged this motorcycle as the consumer alleges; claims here are honored rourtinely when a change in condition is noted on the shipping documents. Mr. [redacted] failed to do this. We are not going to issue any settlement on this claim. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the claimed damage occurred in our custody.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2018/01/02) */
We assigned file #XXXXXXXXX. This claim was investigated and subsequently denied due to the fact that no damage was noted on the bill of lading at final delivery to the consignee. We have no liability for any damages reported after the fact....
additionally, this was a used item and the toolbox was full of tools with no key to lock drawers creating a very dangerous shipping situation.
We will not be making any payment on this claim.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/11/09) */
Hello, please see below which has been sent to customer directly. Please also reference a copy of the delivery receipt below in which the only damage noted is a damaged power cord. The customer’s claim for full loss is not supported:
Shon:...
In regards to your claim filed for damaged power supply we have verified with the driver no damage was seen regarding the power cord at initial loading and the power cord was enclosed in the shrink wrap to the machine. (STI reference #1888214). When the machine was loaded for delivery (STI reference #188218) the power cord was still shrink wrapped to machine with no external damage to the machine and cord. But in good will I have contacted 1-800 Vending and provided them the picture of damaged cord sent with your claim. Courtney Putnam @1-800 Vending advised this is the power supply between the entrée and vending machine and if damaged would probably cause the machine to not function properly if at all. Therefore 1--800 Vending offered to send a replacement cord to you at no cost and was shipped November 7, 2017. The cord should arrive November 10, 2017 and below they have provided detail on shipping of the cable for your reference/tracking purposes.
In regards to the storage cost you had mentioned for self-storage ($150.00) these are not covered as part of cargo liability. STI will close your claim unless further support of damage is supplied as outlined in email from me 11/7/17 but we are hopeful the power supply replacement will resolve any further issues.
Thank you so much for your patience in review of your claim as CRST values your trusting us with your transportation needs!!
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2017/11/20) */
Checked several technicians within a 50-me radius, no one is able to repair the vending unit. I am continueing to pay storage fees for an inoperable bending machine.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2017/11/21) */
-Customer [redacted] was sent a replacement power cable. This is confirmed delivered by UPS. Tracking number and confirmation is:
[redacted]
Delivered:
[redacted] VA 22315 on November 14, 2017 at 12:38 pm
-Per manufacturer of vending machine installation of new power cord is simple and a ten minute process.
STI has no liability beyond replacing this power cord as it was the only damage documented at time of delivery
We have closed this claim.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2018/01/08) */
The shipping documents were reviewed as well as interviews conducted with both the driver who picked this up in VA and the driver who delivered this in MI. We also spoke to the warehouse manager of the Detroit hub. We obtained photos taken prior...
to shipping by our driver as he was on site at the shipper in Virginia Beach.
The claim for the chipped chrome molding on the right saddlebag was honored in full.
The customer also submitted a claim for gouges to the engine case of the motorcycle which is located on the lower left side. Although this damage was not noted on the inspection sheet before shipped we were able to see these damages in the photos provided to us by our driver on site in Virginia Beach. See Exhibit A. As evidenced in these photos the motorcycle was tendered to us at the time of day when there was no daylight left. The driver was forced to inspect the motorcycle in the dark. We believe this is the reason that this damage was missed on the inspection sheet. The driver at origin reports he was not given the key but he was told it was in the saddlebag. He stated to the shipper that STI does not allow items to be shipped with motorcycle (covers, personal items, titles, keys, etc.) and that if the shipper chose to tender the key to us we were not responsible for it. Driver states he did NOT verify mileage at time of shipping. The key must be in the ignition to see the mileage readout. The key was in the saddlebag at time of tender to us. Additionally, to address customer's contentions about the communication he received as the shipment progressed, we would like to state that none of these special requests were ever communicated to STI by the broker AA Transport. It is not our standard practice to call customer while at the shipper's.
The motorcycle was then transported through our network to our Detroit distribution center, the warehouse that services final destination Rochester, MI.
The motorcycle was tendered to Mr. [redacted] The delivery driver denies any memory of recording any mileage on the inspection sheet. He stated that the customer wrote the mileage in both the origin and destination sections at the same time while in Rochester. It does appear to be the same handwriting. See Exhibit B. My [redacted] states he did not write this either.
In any case, there is no proof that we rode the motorcycle. The motorcycle was transported through a secure network travelling from the shipper to our Richmond warehouse, transferring to a truck to be moved to Columbus, transferring to a second truck for transit to Detroit, and then finally loaded onto a delivery truck.
Mr. [redacted] submitted a claim for two substantiated costs- repairs to the molding ($100.) and repairs to the engine case ($2365.40). Customer also requested $48.00 reimbursement for U-Haul trailer rental. We issued a check for the repairs to the molding based on evidence showing this was new damage. We did not issue a check for the repairs to the engine case based on the photo we obtained from time of shipping in Virginia Beach showing preexisting damages to this area of the motorcycle. We also did not issue reimbursement for the U-Haul rental. The damages claimed were cosmetic and did not necessitate transport via U-Haul trailer. Mr. [redacted] did not request any specific monetary compensation for the miles that were allegedly added to his vehicle. STI denies culpability in this matter and has issued no reimbursement for this issue. Additionally, in response to the customer's point, we would like to add that STI does not offer insurance with any shipment that is moved thru our company. We do offer excess valuation which can be purchased by the customer. This means that in the case of any damage that is caused by the carrier, payment will not be limited to the standard released liability of $.60/lb. It does not mean that all claims are covered in full. There are certainly other parameters that must be met. In this case, we declined payment on the damages which were present before time of shipping and before any contract with $5,000.00 excess valuation was in effect.
STI has paid those portions of the claim for which we can determine carrier liability. We maintain the original ruling on this cargo claim and will not make any further offers for compensation.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/04/26) */
RESPONSE:
We have reviewed and investigated this claim thoroughly. Claim was submitted to STI for repairs to the following areas:
-front fender and nameplates
-engine guard
- fork covers and reflectors
-handlebars
-outer...
fairing
-rider footboard
-passenger footboard
We determined that there was damage to the fender, forks, engine guard, and handlebars which was caused by incorrect strapping and securing of the motorcycle. This damage was noted at the time of delivery and marked on the delivery receipt as “front loose, fairing bar strapped incorrectly. Origin agent strapped incorrectly to fairing bar, broke weld causing damage to front fender.†Please see enclosed copy of delivery receipt for your reference (Exhibit A). We approved the portion of the customer’s claim related to what was written on the delivery receipt. We then began to investigate the damage to the outer fairing and footboards. We obtained photos taken by our driver at time of shipping in AZ. The photos were taken in front of the home where we picked this motorcycle up, prior to loading the motorcycle on the truck. I confirmed this by comparing the photos to those of the address available on Google streetview (Exhibit B). The photos obtained from our AZ warehouse were taken before we ever handled this motorcycle at all. I was able to view the passenger [redacted] and see that the same “damage†was present before shipping. This damage however is more accurately described as wear and tear. This motorcycle is a 2012 model. The footboards show some discoloration that is present in the photos taken before shipping and there is no evidence to support this portion of the customer’s claim. Additionally, no mention of footboard damage was made on the delivery receipt. I have included these photos for your review as well (Exhibit C). We therefore disallowed this portion of the customer’s claim.
The final part of the claim was a request for repair to the left outer fairing which had been rubbed on the edge where the outer fairing meets the inner fairing. This damage was also not marked at time of delivery when the custody of the motorcycle was transferred to the consignee on 3/30. I later discovered that the motorcycle was taken from the residence where STI had delivered it to and moved to Iron Valley Harley Davidson several days later. On 4/5 we received notification of the claim and this was the first indication that any part of the outer fairing had been damaged. We obtained approximately 10 photos taken by the delivery driver, all photos focused on the strap related damage only. There were no photos of any damaged outer fairing.
We therefore approved partial claim settlement of [redacted] in accordance with the repair estimate from Iron Valley HD for repairs to the following parts only:
-front fender and nameplates
-engine guard
- fork covers and reflectors
-handlebars
One other source of contention with this customer is that there are apparently two copies of the origin inventory. This inventory is completed at time of shipping by our driver and the shipper. It serves to document the condition of the motorcycle prior to shipping. I have enclosed a copy for your review below (Exhibit D). STI’s copy contains a few notations that do not appear on the customer’s copy. I do not know why the two copies do not match exactly. I was able to look at the photos we took prior to loading the motorcycle and determine there were a few minor cosmetic issues, mostly due to age of motorcycle so I can confirm it was not in pristine condition. Additionally, these exceptions marked on STI’s copy of the inventory are not part of any claimed damage to the motorcycle from Mr. [redacted] so I do not consider this issue of different inventories to be relevant to the resolution of this claim.
STI has settled this claim for all transit damage which was marked at time of delivery. We have disallowed payment on the portions of this claim which were either not transit related or not marked at delivery. We consider this settlement to be full, final and fair in light of the condition of the motorcycle as noted on the shipping documents which are used to document condition of the motorcycle at transfer to the consignee. We cannot account for the motorcycle’s handling between the day of delivery 3/30/17 and the date of the estimate from Iron Valley HD which was 4/5. We therefore have received no evidence to show that STI is liable for the rub to the outer fairing.
Exhibit A:
/3
Exhibit B:
Photo our AZ driver took compared to Google Streetview. Confirmation that photos were taken before ever moving this bike or loading on our truck.
Exhibit C:
Photos our AZ driver took, minor cosmetic deficiencies visible in photo have been circled in red.
Exhibit D:
Comparison of customer copy of origin inventory versus STI copy of origin inventory, differences highlighted in yellow
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2018/01/19) */
Hello, STI has agreed to pay the claimant $485.00 to settle the claim. A check will be issued on 2/9/18.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 8, 2018/01/19) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
I am...
pleased that CRST/STI has agreed to compensate me for the total repair costs of the hidden damage to my motorcycle. It does show that STI is not implacable. I consider the matter closed with a fair and equitable outcome.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/04/26) */
This claim was settled at [redacted] of the claimed amount and this will be our maximum settlement. The damage noted at delivery was not found until after unpacking and is classified as concealed damage. The customer submitted a claim to STI because...
part of the instructions for this account are that our delivery agent opens and inspects every piece before delivery. The delivery agent did not do this as the instructions did not appear in the order screen during the time period in which the shipment took place. Instead the freight delivered to the customer and at that time was unpacked and damaged found. There is no evidence that STI caused this damage as we were not the only carrier to transport this shipment and damage was concealed. We issued a settlement of [redacted] in good faith to the customer and also returned the shipment to the claimant. The claimant refused the shipment stating it was completely destroyed and has not cashed the check trying to force STI into a higher payment. There is no basis for full payment of this claim as damage was noted as concealed. We have communicated this to the customer in attached email trail but she has failed to accept the settlement.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/10/12) */
Attached is the letter of claim denial and the signed bill of lading with damages noted at the time of shipping.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/10/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the...
business.)
I do not accept their response. They damaged my motorcycle during transport and are refusing to pay for the damage. I am out [redacted] for the deductible on my own insurance company. The damage has now caused my motorcycle to lose equity if I should decide to sell it. My insurance rates will likely increase because of this. My insurance has paid for this, and they were not responsible.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/10/13) */
The motorcycle was tendered to STI with multiple damages noted, including damages the customer is claiming. No new damages were recorded at time of delivery as evidenced by the shipping bill of lading which has been provided to [redacted]. Our denial of this claim remains.