Cue stolen out of box Priority Mail

[maha]

the person shipping the cue or shaft to you is the one responsible for it. if under insured or not ,then he foots the bill for a new one. that is where the responsibility lies.

only pay by credit card so you can dispute the bill if your package doesnt arrive to you.

and as told registered mail is the way to go and no one even gets it. they keep talking about other ways to send things of value.

 

[poolandpokerman]

I don't expect USPS to pay every claim just on my word, however, I have a copy of the receipt that I paid for in 2008 and also the original cue maker that made the cue has a copy of the receipt when he sold it in 1999, this should have been an open and shut case, that's why I am upset with our good old postal service. I do think I will go the UPS route for a while, it just grips me now when I send a package and they say, DO YOU WANT INSURANCE WITH THIS, of course I then tell them my horror story and hope the customers are listening. Again thanks for all the comments.
Tom

 

[JC]

On the surface it would sure seem like it but actually the insurance policy is specifically for the value of the item, and is capped at the amount of the insurance that you bought in the case where the item is more valuable than you insured it for. It isn't their fault if you bought more insurance than you needed, and you can't expect them to pay for more than you contractually agreed upon with each other and what you contractually agreed upon was the real value of the item.

What does however sound like a scam for sure though is lying and saying an item was new when it really wasn't, or forging a receipt as the poster was telling people to do.

You claim higher value then you pay a corresponding premium which is calculated based on expected and previous loss'. All at a profit for the insurer of course. You have zero control over whether they lose the thing or not. If you tried doing this for a living you would be broke in short order.

You can buy $25,000 life insurance or a million. It doesn't affect the value of your life. You pay the corresponding premium and if you die you get the payout for the sum you decided to insure.

I understand they screw you in the small print and lawyer talk but it aint right. It makes it a scam.

And it's sad that they make you have to either lie or take a loss after ponying up plenty of premium to cover it.

Your justification for this scam is the problem not the answer. You have drank the koolaid and seem to actually believe it's fair.

JC

 

[JC]

I don't expect USPS to pay every claim just on my word,
Tom

Why don't you expect this? You have every right to. They asked you prior to shipping it what it's value was, charged you accordingly and then they lost it.

It's sickening what we tolerate.

JC

 

[Linwood]

Why don't you expect this? You have every right to. They asked you prior to shipping it what it's value was, charged you accordingly and then they lost it.

It's sickening what we tolerate.

The problem is there are some very dishonest people in the world, who will see an opportunity to "make" money based on it. That it offends you likely means you are very honest; but sadly creating institutional processes that assume everyone is honest invites theft.

That is sad, but it is reality.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Why don't you expect this? You have every right to. They asked you prior to shipping it what it's value was, charged you accordingly and then they lost it.

It's sickening what we tolerate.

The problem is that you are basing this on how you assume the policy works, and you assumed wrong. It isn't their fault that you didn't bother find out what you were buying, nor should they then have to pay you based on what you had assumed, just because you assumed it. They owe you for what the two of you agreed on.

Basically the policy says this:

Ok JC, we are going to pay you for the actual value of your item, and not a penny more. Make sure that you only buy the amount of insurance that you need, because any extra you buy is wasted money, because no matter how much you buy, what we are both agreeing to is that you are only going to get reimbursed for the value of your item. You are the one that determines how much to buy because obviously we don't know what your item is worth with you ship it, so it is on you to make sure you buy the correct amount so that you don't buy too much and waste money, or too little and not have enough to cover what it is worth. Again, make sure you do not buy more insurance than your item is worth because it will be wasted money if you do and that is on you. Do you agree to all this JC?

And then you answered yes, I agree to this, and I am going to buy it and then you solidified it with a contract.

Now tell me again why they should do anything but what you agreed on?

I get that you may not like that type of policy, and like with everything else out there that is buyable, if you don't like it or it doesn't meet your needs, then don't buy it. Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and making you a buy policy you don't like. But once you do agree to buy it, don't then later expect them to give you more than what you agreed to.

 

[JC]

The problem is that you are basing this on how you assume the policy works, and you assumed wrong. It isn't their fault that you didn't bother find out what you were buying, nor should they then have to pay you based on what you had assumed, just because you assumed it. They owe you for what the two of you agreed on.

Basically the policy says this:

Ok JC, we are going to pay you for the actual value of your item, and not a penny more. Make sure that you only buy the amount of insurance that you need, because any extra you buy is wasted money, because no matter how much you buy, what we are both agreeing to is that you are only going to get reimbursed for the value of your item. You are the one that determines how much to buy because obviously we don't know what your item is worth with you ship it, so it is on you to make sure you buy the correct amount so that you don't buy too much and waste money, or too little and not have enough to cover what it is worth. Again, make sure you do not buy more insurance than your item is worth because it will be wasted money if you do and that is on you. Do you agree to all this JC?

And then you answered yes, I agree to this, and I am going to buy it and then you solidified it with a contract.

Now tell me again why they should do anything but what you agreed on?

I get that you may not like that type of policy, and like with everything else out there that is buyable, if you don't like it or it doesn't meet your needs, then don't buy it. Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and making you a buy policy you don't like. But once you do agree to buy it, don't then later expect them to give you more than what you agreed to.

This is a circular argument that I can't win with you because you fail to recognize the basic premise. Which is I don't give a shit what it says in the fine print it's still a scam. A scam designed to bring in much more money than is paid out and leave people pissed off more times than not.

I am not arguing that the policy says this. My problem is with the fact that it does. And the scammers who wrote it know that the average person is just going to think they are covered for the sum they paid for without reading the fine print. And why wouldn't they until they get hardened and cynical like me from having a belly full of it.

And these corporate con men are rich doing it. I don't need a lawyerly bookworm lecture to try to tell me why this isn't a scam because this ain't my first rodeo and I know a scam when I see one.

Reminds me of why violence always ends up settling the big issues of mankind.

JC

 

[JC]

The problem is there are some very dishonest people in the world, who will see an opportunity to "make" money based on it. That it offends you likely means you are very honest; but sadly creating institutional processes that assume everyone is honest invites theft.

That is sad, but it is reality.

So these opportunistic folks are over insuring the value of box contents and paying the premiums to do so with the hopes of the post office losing it? This is their get rich quick scheme? Tell me how this works again?

Where have the branches gone from peoples logic trees?

Geez

JC

 

[Poolplaya9]

This is a circular argument that I can't win with you because you fail to recognize the basic premise.

No you fail to recognize the basic premise. You are tying to think of it like a life insurance policy. It isn't a life insurance policy, nor is it set up like one because it is covering property. It is set up like all the other property insurance. Like your homeowners insurance for example. You might have up to $100,000 coverage for your personal property through your homeowners policy, or whatever amount you picked, just like you can choose whatever amount your postal policy will cover up to. Now if a burglar breaks in and steals $5,000 worth of jewelry, and you file a claim, do you expect to get paid $100,000? That's how much coverage they provide up to, right, so of course they should pay you $100,000 for your $5,000 loss, right? I mean that's just obvious because you paid for up to $100,000 worth of coverage right? Screw the fine print right? Those damn scammers are only trying to pay me $5,000 for my $5,000 loss even though I paid for up to $100,000 of coverage!

Which is I don't give a shit what it says in the fine print it's still a scam.

Anything that two people agree to, as long as neither was forced to do it against their will, and as long as one did not lie to the other, is not a scam. Period. End of story. It might not be a product you like, and so like everybody else you just avoid the products you don't like and you don't buy them, but that doesn't make it a scam, it just makes it a product you don't happen to like.

Reminds me of why violence always ends up settling the big issues of mankind.

I sure hope this wasn't some kind of veiled threat to me. You might want to clarify.

 

[Linwood]

So these opportunistic folks are over insuring the value of box contents and paying the premiums to do so with the hopes of the post office losing it? This is their get rich quick scheme? Tell me how this works again?

Where have the branches gone from peoples logic trees?

Absolutely.

While I suspect there is some pro-active procedures, the vast majority of these rules, and the lengthy terms and conditions you agree to with almost anything you do now-a-days, is because some jerk(s) took advantage of them and these are reactionary rules.

I bought a table saw from Delta in the early 90's. The metal top came wrapped in the greasiest, messiest paper you can image, to ensure it did not rust in transit/storage. Awful stuff, you wanted to put gloves on just to remove. And written on it "Do not wrap food in this paper".

You think someone just said "maybe someone will wrap food in this awful stuff", or that someone did so, and then sued them with a result?

I guarantee in the past people have included inflated values in some scam, probably along with a partner at the other end assuring it went missing.

When I've shipped expensive cameras off for repair as an individual, I've had UPS insist on opening the box and looking inside to make sure there is a camera in there, as described. Almost certainly because others have shipped empty boxes then claimed someone stole it in transit. I could complain that they didn't trust me, but it would be a waste of breath because they don't.

It's hard to imagine how crooked and creative people are who don't want to work for a living, but steal from others.

 

[JC]

No you fail to recognize the basic premise. You are tying to think of it like a life insurance policy. It isn't a life insurance policy, nor is it set up like one because it is covering property. It is set up like all the other property insurance. Like your homeowners insurance for example. You might have up to $100,000 coverage for your personal property through your homeowners policy, or whatever amount you picked, just like you can choose whatever amount your postal policy will cover up to. Now if a burglar breaks in and steals $5,000 worth of jewelry, and you file a claim, do you expect to get paid $100,000? That's how much coverage they provide up to, right, so of course they should pay you $100,000 for your $5,000 loss, right? I mean that's just obvious because you paid for up to $100,000 worth of coverage right? Screw the fine print right? Those damn scammers are only trying to pay me $5,000 for my $5,000 loss even though I paid for up to $100,000 of coverage!


Anything that two people agree to, as long as neither was forced to do it against their will, and as long as one did not lie to the other, is not a scam. Period. End of story. It might not be a product you like, and so like everybody else you just avoid the products you don't like and you don't buy them, but that doesn't make it a scam, it just makes it a product you don't happen to like.


I sure hope this wasn't some kind of veiled threat to me. You might want to clarify.

Yea what's your IP address? I want to send you a virus. LMAO

JC

 

[JC]

Absolutely.

While I suspect there is some pro-active procedures, the vast majority of these rules, and the lengthy terms and conditions you agree to with almost anything you do now-a-days, is because some jerk(s) took advantage of them and these are reactionary rules.

I bought a table saw from Delta in the early 90's. The metal top came wrapped in the greasiest, messiest paper you can image, to ensure it did not rust in transit/storage. Awful stuff, you wanted to put gloves on just to remove. And written on it "Do not wrap food in this paper".

You think someone just said "maybe someone will wrap food in this awful stuff", or that someone did so, and then sued them with a result?

I guarantee in the past people have included inflated values in some scam, probably along with a partner at the other end assuring it went missing.

When I've shipped expensive cameras off for repair as an individual, I've had UPS insist on opening the box and looking inside to make sure there is a camera in there, as described. Almost certainly because others have shipped empty boxes then claimed someone stole it in transit. I could complain that they didn't trust me, but it would be a waste of breath because they don't.

It's hard to imagine how crooked and creative people are who don't want to work for a living, but steal from others.

Your explanation is exactly what you are supposed to believe. And you bought it hook line and sinker. The UPS employees inspecting your camera also are unwitting accomplices in the bigger scam. Instructed to do make work to appear there is a legitimate reason for inspecting.

When in fact all the small print and fake work is designed for one reason and one reason only. To pay out as little as humanly possible yet still rake in all the premiums. To deny the maximum amount of claims. To rip off innocent people. For every lazy shiftless scammer working them there are a thousand honest clients being denied legitimate claims due to the "rules". You can find their stories everywhere.

You probably also believe that when the bank puts a daily limit on your debit card by default when you open an account that it's for your protection too.

Another sneaky scam raking in billions. These snakes are tricky.

JC

 

[Linwood]

You probably also believe that when the bank puts a daily limit on your debit card by default when you open an account that it's for your protection too.

Another sneaky scam raking in billions. These snakes are tricky.

No, and I don't think that Costco's inspection when you leave is to make sure you received all your merchandise, as their sign says, either.

And I absolutely agree that companies design their processes to pay the minimum they can get away with.

Can we agree we're both right? That most companies are ... ok, let's go with snakes... looking to pay out as little as possible. But the few that are ethical and treat people with respect, if they do any volume, will quickly get overwhelmed by the scam artists and scum of the earth.

Diogenes is still looking.

 

[Poolplaya9]

For every lazy shiftless scammer working them there are a thousand honest clients being denied legitimate claims due to the "rules". You can find their stories everywhere.

99.9% of the stories you are talking about are actually people expecting coverage that they didn't contract for or pay for. The scam is all these people trying to get something for nothing, made even worse by their complaining about it as if they have a right to get something for nothing. Tired of the entitlement mindset. People are entitled to what they contracted for and paid for, nothing else.

 

[JC]

99.9% of the stories you are talking about are actually people expecting coverage that they didn't contract for or pay for. The scam is all these people trying to get something for nothing, made even worse by their complaining about it as if they have a right to get something for nothing. Tired of the entitlement mindset. People are entitled to what they contracted for and paid for, nothing else.

You are a broken record of nonsense.

But have a great weekend anyway!!

JC