> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# ‘Priceless’ package worth $100 in judge’s eyes Fed Ex not liable for lost package
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/priceless-package-worth-100-in-judges-eyes-fed-ex-not-liable-for-lost-package/
- Published: 2001-11-16T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-22T22:26:38.000Z
- Author: Carolyn Sackariason
- Tags: Crime, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*Insure it if it’s valuable*

Copywriters, save or copy your work. And ask Santa Monican Gregg Rosen what can happen if you don’t.

Rosen recently won a paltry $100 from Fed Ex on a $5,000 claim after a package containing his only work samples was lost on its way back to him. A judge reviewing his case said Rosen was unable to either prove the value of his work, or that he’d lost $5,000 worth of business because he no longer had it.

Rosen, who writes copy for various publications, sent his package to a prospective client in San Francisco. When the client sent it back without insuring it, however, Fed Ex was legally off the hook.

Andrea Jodlowski, a Fed Ex administrative manager, told Santa Monica pro tem judge Norman Axe in small claims court that if the sender doesn’t deem the package an “item of extraordinary value” by buying insurance on it, the company isn’t liable. Senders are bound by the contract they accept with Fed Ex when using the firm to send packages, she noted.

Axe suggested Rosen might have prevailed had he been able to present concrete proof that the loss, called a “misdelivery” by Fed Ex, resulted in lost income for Rosen.

“The question I have is how do you prove damages?” Axe asked. “I don’t think you proved enough of a loss of income. A lot of things are priceless but other than your word, you have nobody proving the value.”

Axe added that Rosen’s loss of income could be a direct result of the economy’s nose dive rather than the bungled delivery.

Rosen argued that because he has no “portfolio,” he can’t show future clients the work he’s done in the past. He noted he has no back up copies of his work because it’s produced as a final product such as an original brochure, which then goes in his portfolio.

Asking him why he doesn’t get copies of his work “is like saying to the L.A. Times, ‘I didn’t get my copy today; can you re-produce it?’” he told Axe. “The costs (of going to press for a single additional paper) are phenomenal,” he added.

The judge was so sympathetic to Rosen’s plight that he offered him additional time to present proof of the value of his loss. But Rosen declined the offer in favor of a quick decision.

“Prior to this happening, I was able to get a new project every six weeks,” noted the frustrated copywriter. “All I can do is point to the general abruptness in not being able to muster up business.”

The stoppage wasn’t enough to convince Axe, however. He noted the insurance argument put forth by Fed Ex’s Jodlowski. Of the millions of packages delivered annually by Fed Ex, some are bound to get lost or “misdelivered,” she said. If the sender has any qualms about a loss in case his package disappears, he should insure it, she noted.

Though the maximum value of an uninsured and lost package is $100, Jodlowski said she would try to get more money from Fed Ex for Rosen.

And the judge had some succinct advice as well. He suggested Rosen use the United States Postal Service in the future.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 16, 2001.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/111601.pdf?ref=smdp.com)