Can I get more insurance for Tracked Packet?

[xprog1]

I generally sell iPhones and I need insurance for at least $300-500. Is it possible to add more coverage to the tracked packet?

I need this only for international shipments.

[cumos55]

As a recommendation...

Please read things very carefully.... 

I have been selling on eBay for 10 years...As a seller I have been through this type of insurance process before

The sellers who post here do know what to do...what the correct process..  and they are always learning something new....

Neither I nor any other seller here should be accused of any ill-doing.... Never....

In future  be very careful of what is said....

 If you have a question...require a confirmation...please do so...

Contribute.... Do not contradict  ...If you have never been involved in such a process...

and above all do not accuse anyone of any wrong doing....  or of any ill-will

Learn from what is said here... Ask questions for confirmation... 

[i*m-still-here]

Nice try Cumo.......... but exactly the opposite of what you posted the first time when you clearly stated that the buyer was NOT refunded by paypal.

You also stated that Canada post "eventually" pad the insurance claim to you.

The case was long closed by the time you received the check for CPO.

To the best of my knowledge, a case cannot be re-opened.

Your first version of the story .........where you stated that you were paid the buyer and still filed an insurance claim:  I buy that one.

There are way too many contradictions in your attempt to explain the fraudulent CPO insurance claim.

[techzone78]

https://www.shipsurance.com/coverage_order1.asp

http://www.insurepost.com/

These are some great 3rd party shipping insurance companies. They have very competeive rates compared to other companies. Insurepost is a division of Shipsurance so it's kind of your choice which website interface suits you personnally. The maximum liababilty provided by Canada Post is only 100 dollars. The rest is up to you to purchase from other companies such as these ones.

[cumos55]

Please read carefully.... and I emphasize carefully

Buyer did not have to file with Paypal to get his payment back.

Tracking showed delivery... that was Seller Protection....

Paypal will not make a refund if tracking shows the parcel has been delivered.....

It was solely my responsibilty to contact Canada Post and file an insurance claim...

It became the responsibility of Canada Post to determine whether the parcel was received by the buyer or not.

Canada Post could not prove that the buyer received the parcel

The insurance money was received... and only then did buyer get a refund of his payment....

Everything occured as per Paypal rules and Canada Post procedure....

[i*m-still-here]

All right cumo.............. Whatever.   

[i*m-still-here]

cumos: You're saying that you refunded the buyer when there was no reason to do so.

In other words, the buyer ended up with a $200 item plus the refund you opted to provide, and you're happy with that.

No wonder it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[cumos55]

(1) Buyer said they never got the parcel.

(2) Canada Post confirmed that buyer did not get the parcel,

(3) Canada Post paid the insurance claim to me, the seller.

(4) Buyer was then refunded....by me... because Canada Post paid the insurance claim to me the seller

There was nothing wrong with anything that happened..

As far as Canada Post  and I are concerned,  buyer never received the parcel.

It is called business ethics.

End of discussion!

[i*m-still-here]

cumos............ all right, but I believe your original post: 

"Impatient buyer filed with Paypal... Paypal saw that tracking showed delivery...  and buyer did not receive his money back... Canada Post eventually paid the insurance claim. "

Every seller knows that your buyer went to the communal box to pick the item up.

Especially you know that.

You have said several times that paypal refunded the buyer, and now you are saying that you refunded the buyer.

Too many contradictions and inconsistencies in your story(s) trying to cover your OP.

Problem isn't that I dont' read the details.

Problem (for you) is that I do.

The idea that you refunded the buyer for no reason at all makes no sense.

You knew the buyer had the item, and you are saying that you volunteered to give the buyer  $200 long after the paypal claim had been closed?????

Give me a break!

[cumos55]

Buyer filed with Paypal...  Did not get a refund.

Seller received insurance cheque from Canada Post.

Seller refunded buyer

Please read... read... read and more read... and then read again... Just not getting through

Canada Post knows what happened...

I know what happened

Buyer knows what happened..

Who does not know what happened?

[zoomrr69]

lol

[cumos55]

The last reply speaks volumes...

I give up....

[pjcdn2005]

The idea that you refunded the buyer for no reason at all makes no sense.

You knew the buyer had the item, and you are saying that you volunteered to give the buyer  $200 long after the paypal claim had been closed?????

Makes sense to me.

Do you find that so hard to believe because you wouldn't give the money to the buyer once you received the insurance?
Why are you assuming that the buyer had the item?

I have heard more than once that an item showed as being delivered even though the person had not actually received it .Postmen make mistakes ...parcels get stolen...delivered to the wrong address...etc etc

btw...Something similar happened to one of my buyers a couple of years ago. Delivery confirmation showed that the item was delivered. Buyer insisted that she hadn't received it.  I notified Canada Post, they investigated and to my surprise, they paid out the insurance and I sent her that money through paypal. I believed that she didn't receive the package so the insurance money was really hers. Perhaps some of us have more faith in human nature than others do.

[pjcdn2005]

You have said several times that paypal refunded the buyer, and now you are saying that you refunded the buyer.

Too many contradictions and inconsistencies in your story(s) trying to cover your OP.

Problem isn't that I dont' read the details.

Problem (for you) is that I do.

Where did cumos say that paypal refunded the buyer? Please give the post numbers.

Perhaps you read the details but you don't seem to be comprehending them

[i*m-still-here]

I read it the first time.

....... but I wasn't sure if the following was a typo or a mistake or what.

That's why I decided to let it go because it sounds like you made a "Fraudulent Insurance Claim."  

However, since you asked:

You stated:

""" Impatient buyer filed with Paypal... Paypal saw that tracking showed delivery...  and buyer did not receive his money back... Canada Post eventually paid the insurance claim. """""

Are you saying that you were paid by the buyer and also filed an insurance claim?

Above is my first response to cumos when he asked me read his post more thoroughly, and had he not asked that of me I wouldn't have queried further about his post which, to me, suggested that something wasn't quite right.

Since he asked, I responded.

He also stated ;

"""Parcel was delivered to a community mailbox....  put in a small compartment...  Buyer should have found a key to the compartment in his lettermail box........""""

.................. and that the buyer had started a premature papal claim.

What are the odds that the buyer didn't hi tail it to the mail box to get that book once the claim was denied…………….. close to zero in my estimation.

Cumos had started a CPO claim before the paypal case was decided in his favour.

Some would say that It should have been cancelled at that point, but it wasn't.

So, he ended up with a $200 check from CPO.

An Ethical Dilemma:  What to do?

1)   Return the check to CPO (Correct course of action.), 

2)   Pocket the money (Most appealing course of action.), or

3)   Even though there is a very very high probability that the buyer has the book by that time, and you have won the paypal claim, give the buyer $200 anyway. . (No comment.)

Just sayin"................ 

Since you asked.

[pjcdn2005]

I noticed you avoided answering any of my questions one of which was to show where Cumos said that paypal refunded the buyer. The buyer was refunded through Paypal as that was how they originally paid. However, the buyer was not refunded at Paypal's instigation, he was refunded by Cumos after he received the insurance money from Canada Post.

It's quite clear to me.

An Ethical Dilemma:  What to do?

1)   Return the check to CPO (Correct course of action.), 

2)   Pocket the money (Most appealing course of action.), or

3)   Even though there is a very very high probability that the buyer has the book by that time, and you have won the paypal claim, give the buyer $200 anyway. . (No comment.)

Re no. 1 - CP investigated and concluded that the buyer did not receive the parcel. Returning the check to them makes absolutely no sense.

Re. no 2 - Perhaps that is the most appealing course of action to you. It obviously was not the most appealing to Cumos since he clearly did not do that.

Re no. 3 - High probability according to you who has not dealt with the buyer and who doesn't even know who the buyer is. We all make judgement calls about buyers depending on their past ebay history and how they handle a situation but unless you know the buyer, it's impossible to guess what might have happened.

Obviously CP did not think the buyer had the package. Obviously Cumos did not think the probability was high either but I guess you know better? I have no idea if he thought there was any chance that the buyer did receive the package but even if he did, it seems that he did not want the buyer to be out any money so he made the buyer whole.

 I think that in the same situation, most ethical sellers would do the exact same thing. For someone to suggest that Cumos was lying and/or had been dishonest is way over the line. Based on the posts, there is absolutely no reason to think that Cumos did anything unethical.

That's all I have to say.

[i*m-still-here]

PJ.....  The only information I have is what Cumos posted.

That is what I was responding to and nothing more.

And no: according to the information posted by cumos option #2 would not have been my choice.

With the information provided by cumos I would have cancelled the CPO claim right after the buyer lost the paypal claim.

Again:  I only asked cumos about it because his post made no sense.

He asked me to read carefully and so I did, and I then asked him about it because the way it was posted suggested wrong doing.

I thought it was a typo or something like that because I don't think English is Cumos's first language.

Sorry, but it still makes no sense, and your post doesn't do anything to rectify that.

[pierrelebel]

"I think that in the same situation, most ethical sellers would do the exact same thing. For someone to suggest that Cumos was lying and/or had been dishonest is way over the line. Based on the posts, there is absolutely no reason to think that Cumos did anything unethical."

I totally agree with every word.

[pierrelebel]

"With the information provided by cumos I would have cancelled the CPO claim right after the buyer lost the paypal claim."

That does not make any business sense. It would have left the buyer without the goods and his money!

The correct thing to do for all concerned was exactly what Cumos has done, every step of the way. I would have done exactlty the same thing in the circumstances.

This way, the buyer get properly reimbursed for a payment made for goods not received and the seller gets reimbursed for the insurance he purchased. There was no other solution that would adequately indemnify both the buyer and the seller.

To suggest or imply the buyer received the goods is libellous. There is no evidence or indication to that effect.Even Canada Post agree the buyer did not receive the goods!

Yes, we all have freedom of expression on the internet, including eBay's board.  However, that is no reason to suggest or imply wrongdoing on someone's part when there is no such evidence. We see too much of that on a regular basis.

[i*m-still-here]

What I have posted was that the what Cumos wrote suggests that something is off.  I don't know what happened and I have never said that I do. 

 BUT......

To say that """ most ethical sellers would have refunded a buyer """" in the situation Cumos described is also implying that:

A seller who would not have refunded a buyer in that situation is unethical.

 You've just painted almost every seller on ebay as unethical!

I've dealt with a lot of sellers, some fabulous and some not so much........... but man, it's rare for a seller ......... even the best....... to agree to a return without a fight or agree to refund when an item did not arrive...........  let alone willingly send a refund after the claim was lost.

You are implying that these are all unethical sellers.

Are you kidding me?

[pierrelebel]

Sometimes, it is a good thing to go on an extended vacations.  It clears the mind.