Limited Compensation or Full Compensation for the loss related to the Express?

Mr Lee sent items with a value of 20,000 Yuan by ZTO Express Company (hereinafter referred to as “ZTO”). He wrote the goods name, specifications, quantity on the express waybill, but he did not pay for the insurance. Unfortunately, the items were lost. Lee asked ZTO for compensation with express waybill and invoice of the items, however, ZTO only agreed to compensate part of the loss, and the amount should be calculated as several times of the express fee, in accordance with the “Postal Law” or Delivery Notice. Lee sued to the court, and the court determined that ZTO should make full compensation for actual losses because the insurance term on Delivery Notice was invalid.

Actually, including ZTO, many big domestic private expresses stipulate the similar term, which says if the sender did not pay for the insurance, then the expresses will compensate part of the loss, and the compensation is several times of the express fee. Currently, there is no unified standard for the judicial authorities on the compensation liabilities of the expresses under such circumstance. In practice, some courts affirmed full compensation in terms of the invalid insurance term, which should be deem as a standard clause exempts the express itself from the liability, precludes the senders from full compensation; some courts affirmed full compensation in terms of the expresses failed to call in a reasonable manner the senders’ attention to the exemptible and restrictive clauses regarding their liabilities, and give explanations of such clauses; however, there are courts who affirmed the limited compensation amount to several times of the express fee, or part of the value of items in individual cases in terms of the expresses’ failure on taking care of the items.

Then, how could the sender protect their interests?

Firstly, Postal Law has stipulated limited compensation, which can only be applied to “the postal enterprises” (referrers to China Post Group and the enterprises providing postal services which are wholly owned or are controlled by China Post Group). So the senders can choose private expresses to deliver their items, where limited compensation should not be applied directly.

Secondly, the sender should keep the evidence on proving the value of the items. The evidence shall cover 2 aspects: to prove the actual value of the items; to prove the delivered items are corresponding to the items with evidence of the actual value. For example, in this case, Lee provided the invoice of the items, and the express waybill which stated the title, specification and quantity of the item.

Thirdly, the senders shall pay attention to whether the expresses have called in a reasonable manner the senders’ attention or explained on the limited compensation. In practice, as mentioned above, although some courts affirmed the sender’s claim on full compensation in terms of the invalid clauses on limited compensation, the difference consequences for “the postal enterprises” and “private expresses” are obviously. Normally, to be fair, the courts will analyze whether the expresses have fulfilled the responsibilities of calling a reasonable attention and explaning.

Certainly, it is highly recommended for the sender to declare to the expresses, pay the insurance, and keep the relevant receipts of the items when sending precious items.