Narrative Summary

I shipped a $1,200 electric scooter. It was scanned as "Delivered," but the buyer proved with security footage that a UPS driver actually dropped it at the wrong house, where it was later stolen. UPS placed the claim in "Investigation Pending" and demanded the buyer file a formal police report for theft before they would process the payout. The local police refused to write a report for a misdelivered package, stating it was a civil carrier issue. UPS refused to move forward without the police report.

The Resolution Strategy

Demanding a police report for a carrier misdelivery is a classic deflection tactic. UPS knows police departments often won't investigate package errors, trapping the claim in an administrative stalemate.

The Authori claims platform drafted a response utilizing UPS Tariff Item 540 to end the paralysis. The appeal letter explicitly rejected the police report requirement.

The drafted response argued that the tracking data and geofence logs already proved the driver failed to deliver to the contracted address. Under Item 540, UPS must process the claim based on the sufficient commercial evidence provided. The letter firmly stated that UPS cannot invent external, non-contractual evidentiary hurdles (like a police report) to artificially delay an indemnity payout for their own breach of contract. Recognizing the procedural overreach, UPS dropped the demand, closed the investigation, and paid the $1,200.