The Washington herald., 1921-01-19
SHIPPERS URGED
TO GUARD AGAINST
SHORT DELIVERY
Not Easy Prove Loss
From Theft of
Shipments.

When a single case from a total
shipment of several fails to arrive
at its destination, does such Il loss
constitute short delivery or a theft?
Occasionally a shipper, carrier, or
consignee is able easily to prove the
fate of the missing unit, but in a
great many instances there is no
trace whatsoever left OF the lost
goods.
Marine companies in the past have
usually shown leniency and often
paid loss under a theft claim when
shipment was specifically covered
against the risks of theft and pill
fersge, but not against nondelivery
or short delivery.
Recently, however, they have be-
come stricter in their attitude to-
ward the assured and are making
claimants prove their losses are the
result of thievery and not due to
the hundred and one causes of short
delivery. Theft and pilferage claims
are becoming too numerous and too
ments settling claims with the same
liberality of former times, comments
the Eastern Underwater. Measures
must be taken to reduce losses un-
der theft risks, and this step is one
of them.
Dfmcult to Prove Loss.
Without question 1t is most diff
cult oftentimes for an assured to
prove conclusively that a missing
case or package was stolen and not
accidentally sent astray. The car
rier's bill of lading may show that an
entire shipment of goods was re-
ceived on board steamer, and, IL
the consignee's warehouse is situat-
ed within a short defiance of the
wharf at the port Of destination, the
reason for the disappearance of part
OF the shipment may be discovered
quickly and certainly. But, as fire.
quently happens, IL the goods must
be carried inland over rail, water, or
any other route the question OF es-
tablishing the real cause of an in
complete delivery becomes instantly
intricate and perhaps impossible. All
the assured knows is that one or
possibly more units failed to be de-
even months later and. on the other
hand, they may permanently be
among the missing.
Under such circumstances IL the
assured is covered against theft and
pilferage in addition to the ordinary
marine hazards, and he decides to
submit a theft claim he must do
so with a proof of loss within
specified period. The proof has
many times consisted purely of the
knoWledge that a certain package
or packages were gone, where or in
what manner being impossible to
state"
Under such conditions certain in
surance companies would at times
snow a Willingness to paw these
clalms' rather than stand suuareIy
on their rights, particularly n The
assureds previous loss record was
1ree from questionable claims. or II
the size of the account were sucb
that the underwriting company did
not care to enter into litigation
over comparatively small matter
that might possibly lead to a break
ing on of business relations.
Few Now Have .PuII,-
Ioday, few indeed are the assured
who have what is commonly called
pull" with the underwriting ~
nces, when the question OF a theft
loss comes up for adjustment
Elther the assured proves beyond
any reasonable doubt that the case.
package or whatnot was stolen, or
ne does not recover under the theft
clause. The companies are strongly
advising their policyholders 10 pTo-
tect themselves against short de-
livery by the payment of a small
additional premium, and thus elm
mate all possibilities of trouble over
tne settling of such claims as have
Deen described in this article.