Rainier Overseas Movers Avis 

Réponse de Rainier Overseas Movers

18 mai 2020

Peggy - Thank you once again for posting your comments to yet another forum. For the public knowledge, below is again our feedback. I urge anyone who actually reads this to view our hundreds on 5 star reviews on Google, MyMovingReview.com, Better Business Bureau, movingscam.com and move forums out there. We are sorry again you are unhappy with the insurance settlement.
Our feedback:
Response to Part I: The customer did ask how often large loss claims happen, and I did tell her that they are very rare. That I have not had one yet (which is exactly accurate as this is my first large loss claim). She also asked about the best way to value her shipment, I told her the same thing I tell everyone. You can go with a lump sum coverage which would then value your shipment at $10/lb., which considering her shipment weight was 12,460 pounds would make her value $124,600.00 or she minimize her insurance expense by doing an itemized valued inventory, giving each item a value. Thus, valuing her most prize possessions at replacement value but giving items that are older or less value a significantly less value. This could reduce your initial cost of coverage greatly. She elected to go with the itemized value and listed all her items with a total value of $7,600.00 with the highest deductible option of $1,000.00 deductible. When asked if this was enough coverage via email, her emailed reply was “yes, none of the other items are worth anything”. Response Part II: Prior to loading the container was inspected and no leaks were found. The customer was present during loading and sent me several emails saying how impressed she was with the loading and handling of her goods at origin. Response Part III: Again, the container was inspected at origin and did not have any indication of damages or leaks. The customer is assuming that the damage was done prior to loading and was known prior to loading, although she was present at loading and did not witness anything wrong either. Response Part IV: Her assumption is incorrect, it was not known that there was water damage until the container was released from customs and being transloaded for delivery. The shipment was delivered on the next available slot following determining there was water damage. Response Part V: this statement is false and a flat-out untruth. No person at Rainier ever asked for this shipment to be held for any reason or asked that the customer not be told of the damage in any fashion. Exactly the opposite, when the customer was having difficulty getting her documents approved and her delivery made, she contacted her Rainier Representative to see if he could assist, he contacted the agent and the delivery was immediately scheduled for delivery. We have all the emails, including the one with her thanking him for his assistance. Response Part VI: ) customer purchased $7,600.00 of coverage with a $1,000 deductible Response Part VII: Unirisc settled the damages based on the items and values the customer claimed on their insurance applications, and Rainier settled all other items at the legal liability of .60/lb/article. Response Part VIII: the customer was not able to provide a list of any of the missing items; however Rainier still choose to settle the “claimed” missing cartons at the legal liability of .60/lb./article Response Part VIIII: Rainier more than fulfilled all obligations, it is extremely unfortunate that this occurred and that on this particular shipment the damage was extreme, and the coverage elected by the customer was insufficient to cover their losses. However, they made the decision on the coverage and Rainier in no way can be held liable for the decision of the customer to greatly undervalue her own shipment and fail to purchase correct coverage. Any further information or documentation backing up our response will be provided upon request. thank you,
Feedback Part II:
We completely agree with Ms. ****** that the damage to her shipment is not “normal” for moving. This was an extraordinary amount of damage; mostly caused by a water leak that occurred within the container during transit. Although the container was inspected before loading, somewhere between the time it was loaded and the final delivery a leak occurred damaging many of the items. Prior to loading, Ms. ****** was offered multiple options for insurance coverage to protect her shipment against all possible damage. Ms. ****** opted for an itemized policy in which she personally provided a list of the values of the goods that were being shipped. In her own words, only the items she was opting to cover had any value and were worth insuring. Some of these items were those that were damaged. Unirisc settled those items out at the insured value given by Ms. ******. Unfortunately, many of the other items that were damaged were not on her insured list, thus leaving them with no coverage through Unirisc. Rainier did, settle each of the remaining items that had no coverage at the basic liability level of .60/lb./article as required. Regardless of what causes damage, be it human error or act of god, customers are only covered for the level of coverage they select and beyond that we have a very strict legal liability to adhere to. It is very unfortunate that this happened, and I do wish that there would have been ample coverage taken out by the customer to make sure her goods were fully covered, but this was not the case in the incident. Although we understand that the customer is unhappy with the results, we do believe the customer was dealt with fairly and ethically.