- 86 -
contract to each of its shippers. As a result of tariff
requirements 510 and 520, rather than filing claims with NUF
under the Shippers Interest contract, shippers were required to
file a claim only "against" petitioner within a specific time in
order to be compensated for loss or damage. Even at the point
when petitioner adjusted shippers' claims, petitioner does not
appear to have informed the shippers that NUF was the insurer of
the claim or that the shippers had any recourse against NUF.
Thus, shippers' claims were presented to and resolved by
petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the tariff.
Petitioner represented to its customers in its quarterly
publications that petitioner was liable for lost or damaged
packages. In December 1983, petitioner's Roundups newsletter
informed its customers that petitioner's drivers would leave
packages without signatures at certain delivery locations. In
the newsletter, petitioner assured its shippers that UPS would
continue to assume liability for lost and damaged packages up to
$100 or the declared value. On the basis of the foregoing facts,
we find that after January 1, 1984, petitioner remained liable to
shippers who had declared a value in excess of $100.
There still remains the question of whether the arrangement
with NUF and OPL sufficiently reduced petitioner's financial
exposure to be recognized as having economic substance. The
Shippers Interest contract provided that NUF was not liable for
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011