B-124759, DEC. 29, 1955

B-124759, DEC. 29, 1955

TO THE HONORABLE POSTMASTER GENERAL:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 12, 1955, FROM THE ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL, IN REPLY TO OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 1, 1955, FURNISHING A REPORT ON THE CLAIM OF MR. SAM W. CAVETT, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, FOR INDEMNITY ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF AN INSURED PACKAGE MAILED BY HIM AT THE POST OFFICE IN GILLIAM, LOUISIANA.

THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 12 STATES THAT WHEN THE PACKAGE WAS MAILED ON JANUARY 5, 1955, MR. CAVETT REQUESTED THAT THE PACKAGE BE INSURED FOR $200 AND PAID A FEE OF 30 CENTS REQUESTED BY THE POSTMASTER. BOTH THE POSTMASTER AND THE CLAIMANT CONTEND THAT THE PACKAGE WAS TO BE INSURED FOR $200, BUT THAT THE POSTMASTER ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED ONLY 30 CENTS, INSTEAD OF 35 CENTS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 8 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 30, 1951, PUBLIC LAW 672, 65 STAT. 675. THE PROPER FEE FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE UP TO $200 WAS ONLY 30 CENTS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1952. AN OBSOLETE RECEIPT, WHICH SHOWED 30 CENTS AS THE PROPER FEE FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE UP TO $200, WAS ISSUED TO MR. CAVETT.

IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 4, 1955, B-124759, 35 COMP. GEN. 187, WE ADVISED YOU THAT WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REGULATION TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY, WORDED SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS:

"WHENEVER IT SHALL BE SHOWN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL THAT THE SENDER WAS CHARGED A FEE LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE DESIRED BY THE SENDER, THROUGH ERROR ON THE PART OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, THE DEFICIENCY IN FEE MAY BE COLLECTED FROM THE SENDER AND POSTAL INSURANCE MAY BE PAID WITHIN THE LIMIT FIXED FOR THE HIGHER FEE.'

UNDER THIS REGULATION--- WHICH WE UNDERSTAND WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE--- CLAIMS SIMILAR TO MR. CAVETT'S WHICH ACCRUE ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE REGULATION MAY BE PAID. WHILE THE LAST CHANGE IN THE FEES WAS EFFECTED FOUR YEARS AGO, THERE APPARENTLY ARE A FEW CLAIMS SIMILAR TO MR. CAVETT'S PENDING IN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. MR. CAVETT'S CASE THE INSURANCE OF THE PACKAGE UP TO $200 WAS AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT BOTH THE POSTMASTER AND THE CLAIMANT INTENDED TO SECURE INSURANCE COVERAGE UP TO $200 BUT, THROUGH A MUTUAL MISTAKE OF FACT, A FEE OF 30 CENTS INSTEAD OF 35 CENTS WAS COLLECTED. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE A CONTRACT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF A MUTUAL MISTAKE OF FACT, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT SUCH CONTRACTS GENERALLY MAY BE REFORMED TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES. SEE 30 COMP. GEN. 220.

ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PAYMENT OF MR. CAVETT'S CLAIM UP TO THE AMOUNT OF HIS ACTUAL LOSS, LESS THE ADDITIONAL FEE REQUIRED. ALSO, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL'S LETTER, SIMILAR PENDING CLAIMS MAY BE SETTLED WHERE THE INTENTION OF THE SENDER AS TO THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE COVERAGE CAN BE VERIFIED BY EITHER A STATEMENT OF THE POSTAL EMPLOYEE WHO ACCEPTED THE ARTICLE FOR INSURANCE,OR BY THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE POST OFFICE OF MAILING HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWING THE CURRENT SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE FEES.