Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My point is that the last party to have had possession of his merchandise claimed it was counterfeit. The evidence is he shipped the merchandise to Amazon, Amazon said it was counterfeit and if he didn't product evidence to the contrary, they'd either destroy it or he could retrieve it, and he chose not to retrieve it.

I really don't see why insurance would pay out under these circumstances.



I think OP means, if it's logical and correct for the insurance not to pay, it was probably logical and correct for Amazon to destroy it as well.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: