Independent Appraisal (VS) Non-Independent Appraisal???

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/25/2006 12:25:08 AM
Author: Mrs Darlin Joy

Wink

Thanks Wink for your candor and comentary. I have always appreciated your input, even when I was part of another forum long ago. Your expertise is always appreciated and welcome!


Take care, and have a wonderful day!

Thank you for your kind words. I get so busy sometimes that I answer a thread at the point I am in it, and then find out much detail later in the thread. I agree with you that it was an odd thing for the lady to keep harping on, and I can only guess that she enjoys causing others needless concern.

I am glad to hear it was not an appraiser. I have been to Oregon many times, and you too live in a beautiful state!

Wink

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Date: 7/25/2006 12:42:13 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Mrs DJ,

Not that you need another comment from me

, but I thought I''d add that I plan to have my ring sent back to Jonathan, if I have it set elsewhere, just so he can look at it and check the stone, etc. before sending it to me. I''m going setting shopping tomorrow!

Hi Diamondseeker ~

I always appreciate your comments!

Sounds like you have it all figured out. Yay for DS!

I personally can''t wait to see YOUR

diamond in a yummy setting!

Going shoping?! Where to? Whatcha'' gonna go lookie at?

Do tell girlfriend!

Hope you have a day filled with fun and *a find a awesome setting!

Take care,

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks Mrs DJ!

I am going to two places. One carries Vatche and MANY other settings. Another carries Sheldon Speyer. GOG has both of those. If I cannot choose one from those brands, then hopefully I''ll be able to figure out what looks good with the eternity band I already have. I''ll return it if I find a set. I hope they have one like yours so I can try it, too!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/23/2006 4:46:39 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
No, this is not correct. I can assure you that Jonathan will give you an excellent appraisal. There is no need for another one in your case unless you do not trust what Jonathan and the report/certificate says. What he gives you will be more than adequate for insurance. No one is going to do more tests on that stone than he has!!!

An independent appraisal is necessary when the diamond does not come with one or when you don''t trust the source of the diamond.

I don''t completely agree with this. I don''t think a lack of trust is the only reason to seek an independent appraisal, and I don''t think that people who want an I/A are motivated by distrust of their vendor.

I trusted WF completely during my first transaction with them; I''d been familiar with them and their practices for nearly a year when I bought from them. Having said that, I still had my engagement diamond sent to Rich Sherwood. An I/A is hired to provide you with an unbiased second opinion. He is hired by you, and therefore is charged with protecting your interests only. There''s a lot to be said for that.

For me, there are several considerations on whether or not to get an I/A, including the following:

1. How expensive is the piece? Could I easily replace it out of pocket or not? If I can readily afford to bear the cost of replacement, the proportional cost of an I/A is probably not worth it to me.

2. How fussy am I with a replacement stone? If like kind/quality is fine and you aren''t really fussy about the details, then maybe an I/A isn''t for you. In my instance, I was EXTREMELY picky about what I wanted should my stone need replacement, so I wanted the I/A.

3. Is my insurance cash out or replacement? If it''s replacement, I''d feel strongly about an I/A. If it''s cash-out, probably not as much.

For the ladies doing replacement: keep in mind that "LIKE KIND/QUALITY" doesn''t mean they have to provide the *exact* brand of H&A (i.e. Infinity, ACA, etc.); just that they have to replace with a comparable stone (i.e. branded stone, but not necessarily the brand you picked).

I''ve purchased a few 1K stones from WF and from Wink; I didn''t do an I/A on any of them becuase I could readily replace them if I incurred a loss. However, I couldn''t readily replace my e-ring stones or my custom e-ring setting, so those were appraised.

 

[CaptAubrey]

The Capt got his start in insurance defense litigation, and consequently can state several things with confidence:

1. Most insurance adjusters are badly overworked and appreciate anything that makes their jobs easier.
2. All insurance adjusters have to justify their decisions at some point to a senior adjuster further up the food chain.

Thus, regardless of what others may be doing, if you want to be sure you''re going to get your stone replaced with something as close to what you had as possible, it behooves you to submit plenty of detailed documentation of the diamond and be sure this gets made part of the policy. Thus, should you ever need to make a claim:

1. It''s crystal clear (heh

) what you were insuring; and,
2. The adjuster has plenty of paper to wave at his/her superiors to justify the claim.

That''s all you really need to know.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:53:55 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
The Capt got his start in insurance defense litigation, and consequently can state several things with confidence:

1. Most insurance adjusters are badly overworked and appreciate anything that makes their jobs easier.
2. All insurance adjusters have to justify their decisions at some point to a senior adjuster further up the food chain.

Thus, regardless of what others may be doing, if you want to be sure you''re going to get your stone replaced with something as close to what you had as possible, it behooves you to submit plenty of detailed documentation of the diamond and be sure this gets made part of the policy. Thus, should you ever need to make a claim:

1. It''s crystal clear (heh

) what you were insuring; and,
2. The adjuster has plenty of paper to wave at his/her superiors to justify the claim.

That''s all you really need to know.

very useful and straightforward advice cap''n. thanks for your post.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I guess I''m biased, but personally I think it''s crazy to rely on a non-independent versus an independent appraisal, no matter who the source is.

Especially if you''re talking big money.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/25/2006 5:53:55 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
The Capt got his start in insurance defense litigation, and consequently can state several things with confidence:


1. Most insurance adjusters are badly overworked and appreciate anything that makes their jobs easier.

2. All insurance adjusters have to justify their decisions at some point to a senior adjuster further up the food chain.


Thus, regardless of what others may be doing, if you want to be sure you''re going to get your stone replaced with something as close to what you had as possible, it behooves you to submit plenty of detailed documentation of the diamond and be sure this gets made part of the policy. Thus, should you ever need to make a claim:


1. It''s crystal clear (heh

) what you were insuring; and,

2. The adjuster has plenty of paper to wave at his/her superiors to justify the claim.


That''s all you really need to know.

Excellent advice, bury them in paperwork and leave them no wiggle room.
I haven''t dealt with it in jewelery but do so all the time with computers.
The hardest part is convincing them they cant replace a highly customised special purpose server/computer with an off the shelf dell.
A lot of times the adjuster don''t even know how to handle it because all there instructions say is replace it with the cheapest dell they can get by with.
Then they usually have a fit about the cost.
Iv seen them try to replace a 3 month old $15k server with a $5k dell server and get rather nasty about it.

fyi dell has a contract with at least 4 of the major insurance companies for replacement computers.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/25/2006 10:37:16 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
I guess I'm biased, but personally I think it's crazy to rely on a non-independent versus an independent appraisal, no matter who the source is.


Especially if you're talking big money.

In a lot of ways I agree with you but it depends on what the appraisal is being used for and the quality of the appraisal.
The appraisal I got from GOG with my diamond would be fine for insurance use with enough info to get the job done.
There isn't an appraiser that provide the amount of info on it and I can check myself to make sure I got the right diamond so I don't see the need for another appraisal at this time. If I got one done it would be a supplement not a replacement of the GOG appraisal.
BUT:
if it was $20k with a $2000 setting it would be sent to you for an appraisal and I wouldn't buy a Ruby over say 1k without you looking it over first.
Different procedures for different things for me there isn't any one rule that covers everything on this issue.
The one thing that is a must no matter where it came from is having the item described in great detail on the appraisal and the appropriate value on it.

 

[SureShoe]

Mrs Darlin Joy - I''m sorry if this has been written, but I don''t have time to read the entire thread.

To answer your core question: it all depends on the insurance policy.

You MUST MUST MUST make sure you understand what insurance you are buying - that''s up to your agent to help you understand.

My personal opinion is that you should always agree upon a cash value. Basically, if you lose the ring or it''s damaged - the insurance company cuts you a check. This type of policy is more prone to fraud, so it has a higher premium. If you have bad credit or a history of claims, you might not be able to get this sort of policy. For example, I bought a ring for almost exactly $10,000 ($7000 diamond, and 3 bands at $1000 each). If I make a claim, the insurer will cut me a check for the lost/damaged piece. That costs about $125 a year, which is a minimum premium for the insurer - but I have solid credit and have never made an insurance claim.

I would not do replacement value in my opinion. It''s too risky in my opinion and you open yourself up to claim drama.

That''s my take and opinion, obviously you should consider other people''s position.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 7/25/2006 11:45:12 PM
Author: SureShoe
Mrs Darlin Joy - I''m sorry if this has been written, but I don''t have time to read the entire thread.

To answer your core question: it all depends on the insurance policy.

You MUST MUST MUST make sure you understand what insurance you are buying - that''s up to your agent to help you understand.

My personal opinion is that you should always agree upon a cash value. Basically, if you lose the ring or it''s damaged - the insurance company cuts you a check. This type of policy is more prone to fraud, so it has a higher premium. If you have bad credit or a history of claims, you might not be able to get this sort of policy. For example, I bought a ring for almost exactly $10,000 ($7000 diamond, and 3 bands at $1000 each). If I make a claim, the insurer will cut me a check for the lost/damaged piece. That costs about $125 a year, which is a minimum premium for the insurer - but I have solid credit and have never made an insurance claim.

I would not do replacement value in my opinion. It''s too risky in my opinion and you open yourself up to claim drama.

That''s my take and opinion, obviously you should consider other people''s position.

Hi Sure Shoe,

Is the insurance coverage you describe a Chubb Insurance Company policy? If you have a stated value policy with another company, we all like to know who is writing that type of coverage.

Thanks

Rockdoc

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 7/24/2006 9:35:53 AM
Author: RockDoc
Thanks Neil.

To me what is interesting in this matter is that the misrepresented color was one grade. And that one grade was for an essentially 1/2 carat diamond.

Additionally, the sale was made 10 years prior.


Comment ....??


Rockdoc

Comment from a consumer - JUST PLAIN NUTS! This is precisely why EVERY ONE''S insurance premiums are high. I don''t understand these crazy judgements - all about a 2k stone? Who is the world would think about paying close to 6k (which if the judgement went the other way would be the plaintiff''s liablity) to even bring this lawsuit? Too much money & too much time on their hands comes to mind.

One grade off? Was he indeed a GIA graduate? Grading is NOT an exact science. It is an opinion. My guess that even GIA/AGS stones when regraded by a different person or the same person at a different time will quite possibliy yield a different grade.

From just reading the court report - this is irresponsible!

 

[SureShoe]

Is the insurance coverage you describe a Chubb Insurance Company policy? If you have a stated value policy with another company, we all like to know who is writing that type of coverage.

I'm at work and my papers are at home. I want to say it's Traveler's. They called the policy an "agreed upon value", but I believe it's effectively the same thing.

 

[RockDoc]

Hi again Sure

If Travelers is offering the AS AGREED type policy, that could be a real advantage for other forum members.

I''ll have to talk to some traveler''s agents here and learn about the details of their offering, and compare it to Chubb''s policy.

Thanks so much for the reply, and let us know if your company really is Travelers.


Rockdoc

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 7/26/2006 11:15:32 AM
Author: fire&ice
Comment from a consumer - JUST PLAIN NUTS! This is precisely why EVERY ONE''S insurance premiums are high. I don''t understand these crazy judgements - all about a 2k stone? Who is the world would think about paying close to 6k (which if the judgement went the other way would be the plaintiff''s liablity) to even bring this lawsuit? Too much money & too much time on their hands comes to mind.

One grade off? Was he indeed a GIA graduate? Grading is NOT an exact science. It is an opinion. My guess that even GIA/AGS stones when regraded by a different person or the same person at a different time will quite possibliy yield a different grade.

From just reading the court report - this is irresponsible!

Cases like this are invariably "expert-driven," which is to say it comes down to which hired experts the jury decides to believe. The unfortunate fact is that jewelers almost always lose these kinds of cases because jurors are too ready to believe that their jewelers are screwing them--the same instinct that causes all these "was my diamond switched" threads around here--and the plaintiff''s experts are able to convince them that a diamond grade is a scientific fact instead of an opinion.

Never underestimate the damage one disgruntled customer can do. Most of these kinds of lawsuits are more about ego than money.

 

[denverappraiser]

F&I,

The misrepresentation issue in this case started when the seller presented himself to be a reliable source of grading information on which the buyer could reasonably make a purchase decision. This was found to be incorrect. Yes, the seller apparently was a GG.

I have not seen the details of what was presented to the court with regard to either grading (at the time of sale or the grading that led to the complaint) or any explanation of how they determined the damages. Had the seller been basing their grading on a 3rd party, like a lab or other qualified independent party, this probably would have gone better for them. I suspect better documentation at the time of sale would also have benefited the defendant but, as I said, I have no idea what was presented. I agree with the captain, the right expert witness working for the defense might have been helpful as well.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[RockDoc]

I think this is a rather fascinating case.

Admittedly, seeing the actual court filings and record would certainly clarify the overview of the opinion.

However, that said I agree with the Capt and Neil about "expert driven" to a degree in the instant matter, and I agree that many legal actions, once it goes to trial many times, is a my expert vs. your expert.

I am not sure in this particular matter that there was substantive expert testimony. I believe this case was won, based on the defendent''s inability or unwilllingness to comply with procedural court rules. If one ignores proper procedure, judges seldom consider "excuses" for ignoring procedureal rules of Court. Depending on the judge, some can be more "punitive" in their rulings than others.

As perhaps many of you know, I am fairly experienced in these kind of matters as an expert, and it has been my experience that many jeweler defendants believe they are true experts, and do not hire experts to present unbiased testimony. Many have egos that are out of control with this, and many go to court unrepresented by counsel. Some don''t hire counsel until the case gets so out of control, that it becomes too late to present a well planned argument that in some cases would drastically change the outcome of the case.

I have testified in a case where the plaintiff, who was a diamond dealer who had not taken any courses in diamond grading or gemology, testified under oath, that he could grade diamonds better than the GIA! Needless to say that type of testimony doesn''t get you "points" with the trier of fact.

This case law opinion doesn''t mention anything about the testimony of experts, which I would assume would be part of what would be written into the appeal opinion if it had some bearing on the judge''s decision. I would think that if a subsequent GIA or major lab report was presented as evidence of the misrepresentation or by the expert hired by the plaintiff, it would have been noted.

The other interesting part of this matter, which may or not be relevant to the appeals decision, is that they still held the defendant liable after 10 years! Probably the statute of limitations in MASS. would be a period of time after discovering the misrepresntation, rather than the date of sale.

I think this is an classic example of how a misrepresentation that in value wouldn''t have been very much monetarily can result in a "monster" sized judgment when you get into the various considerations in the legal arena vs. what most sellers don''t consider.

Comment?

Rockdoc

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 7/26/2006 11:15:32 AM
Author: fire&ice
Comment from a consumer - JUST PLAIN NUTS! This is precisely why EVERY ONE''S insurance premiums are high. I don''t understand these crazy judgements - all about a 2k stone? Who is the world would think about paying close to 6k (which if the judgement went the other way would be the plaintiff''s liablity) to even bring this lawsuit? Too much money & too much time on their hands comes to mind.

One grade off? Was he indeed a GIA graduate? Grading is NOT an exact science. It is an opinion. My guess that even GIA/AGS stones when regraded by a different person or the same person at a different time will quite possibliy yield a different grade.

From just reading the court report - this is irresponsible!

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Fire and Ice

While you might think this is nuts... I don''t understand how this case raises anyone''s insurance premiums except if the policy is about malpractice. Are you referring to the costs of insurance to consumers?

You might also consider that the plaintiff in this matter probably filed this matter in a lower court, maybe even in small claims, and the defendant kept fiilings appeals forcing the issue to the appeals court.

When it started, the legal costs were probably no where near what they ended up.

Also consider that this is a pretty rare circumstance. Probably 9999% of the these matters either never make it to court, get settled early on, or if they do go to trial they are not appealed and since case law is written only in legal matters that get appealed, we don''t have case law on the books commonly.

I think from what was written in the opinion, that the appeal(s) filed here were brought on by the defendant and not the plaintiff. Maybe I''m in error here, as we can''t see all the relelvant details of testimony and evidence, but it appears that in the lower cases the plaintiff was successful in getting a judgment against the defendant, and it just kept getting appealed.

Rockdoc

 

[RockDoc]

RE: The Case..


The case that Neil has been good enough to share with us for comment I believe is a hair different than some of the comment.

It appears in the opinion that in the appeal judges remarks, the lower court very seriously weighed the word Cerified.

It appears that the defendant, ( note the suit was brought against the person who held him self to be certified or that he could "certify" the quality, rather than the store ) did not provide good testimony, as the court stated in its opinion that "certification of diamonds" is reserved for major labs. I would have testified in this matter that this was follly, as on major lab grading reports, it is clearly stated that they do not certify. GIA particularly states that "it certifies nothing and no one".

The consideration here to be made, is the seriousness that the court relates to the term Certify, Certified, or Certification.

In the jewelry and diamond industry using this word has much more serious implications than the average person would consider.

Appraisals that start out "We CERTIFY" can obviously backfire very seriously when in court.


In the opinion it also states this was a bench trial, so I am assuming that this matter was not a jury trial.


The issues considered in the appeal dealt more with procedural rulings and statue/ case law in challenging the treble damages, legal damages etc, that were awarded by the lower court.


This is such a great case to dissect and analyze.

Rockdoc

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 7/26/2006 3:22:58 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 7/26/2006 11:15:32 AM
Author: fire&ice
Comment from a consumer - JUST PLAIN NUTS! This is precisely why EVERY ONE''S insurance premiums are high. I don''t understand these crazy judgements - all about a 2k stone? Who is the world would think about paying close to 6k (which if the judgement went the other way would be the plaintiff''s liablity) to even bring this lawsuit? Too much money & too much time on their hands comes to mind.

One grade off? Was he indeed a GIA graduate? Grading is NOT an exact science. It is an opinion. My guess that even GIA/AGS stones when regraded by a different person or the same person at a different time will quite possibliy yield a different grade.

From just reading the court report - this is irresponsible!

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Fire and Ice

While you might think this is nuts... I don''t understand how this case raises anyone''s insurance premiums except if the policy is about malpractice. Are you referring to the costs of insurance to consumers?

You might also consider that the plaintiff in this matter probably filed this matter in a lower court, maybe even in small claims, and the defendant kept fiilings appeals forcing the issue to the appeals court.

When it started, the legal costs were probably no where near what they ended up.

Also consider that this is a pretty rare circumstance. Probably 9999% of the these matters either never make it to court, get settled early on, or if they do go to trial they are not appealed and since case law is written only in legal matters that get appealed, we don''t have case law on the books commonly.

I think from what was written in the opinion, that the appeal(s) filed here were brought on by the defendant and not the plaintiff. Maybe I''m in error here, as we can''t see all the relelvant details of testimony and evidence, but it appears that in the lower cases the plaintiff was successful in getting a judgment against the defendant, and it just kept getting appealed.

Rockdoc

First - to agree with Neil that the judgement seemed to have more to do with the defendent p*ssing off the judge. That was quite evident. So, that''s the first thing I find nuts regarding the judge & defen.

I''m confused as to why a GG would not be "capable within reason" to effectively grade diamonds. Isn''t that the whole diamond course in a nutshell?

I was under the assumption - from several of the appraisers on this board that fraud is when the diamond is graded two or three colors off. I suppose maybe that is criminal instead of this frivilous suit.

Isn''t one grade off a judgement call? Why wouldn''t this have been evidenced.

I''m still shaking my head that this women could be awarded such a hefty settlement over a dopey diamond grade one off - 1O YEARS LATER! I still think it is irresponsible. As the capt. noted often this is about ego - and that makes it even sadder that this type of ruling would ENCOURAGE the frivolities of this type of lawsuit.

Yes, in the end we all pay - the cost of this judgement will be passed off to the consumer in some form of another - be it the jeweler''s insurance against such suits - raising all malpractice insurance - whose going to end up paying for that increase?

Don''t get me started about expert vs expert. So, not only do we have to hire an attorney - we have to hire experts too?

My rant has little to do with appraisers/jewelers as it goes to issue of consumers acting irresponsible. I would think that a reasonable person would accept a color grade off - from 10 years ago!

So, does the jeweler who sold us my original diamond have a claim against me because my stone was graded by another inde. app. to be better in color and clarity? He could claim that he wasn''t qualified to grade & I took advantage. To me, it''s the same absurdity.

Also, something the case doesn''t reference - who determined with ultimate authority the "correct" grade of the stone?

 

[CaptAubrey]

I was not able to get Neil''s link to work yesterday for some reason, but I tried it again just now and read the opinion.

I agree with everything RockDoc says above, especially that the court''s focus on the concept of "certify" is very puzzling. That, and the small amount at issue, leads me to believe that in fact there were no experts involved in this case. Certainly even a freshly-minted GG would have been able to disabuse the court of its misperceptions about grading and certifications. In all likelihood, as RockDoc suggests, the jeweler either represented himself or kept his attorney on a short budget. The bulk of his defense was likely his own testimony, and haven been given enough rope, he proceeded to hang himself.

Because so much in this business depends on reputation, many jewelers take allegations of this nature as personal affronts to be avenged at all costs. I can think of a number of cases I''ve heard of over the years where the jeweler should have been able to win the case had it been properly handled but lost because he was unable deal with the matter dispassionately.

 

[CaptAubrey]

Date: 7/26/2006 4:38:03 PM
Author: fire&ice

I was under the assumption - from several of the appraisers on this board that fraud is when the diamond is graded two or three colors off. I suppose maybe that is criminal instead of this frivilous suit.

...

Don''t get me started about expert vs expert. So, not only do we have to hire an attorney - we have to hire experts too?
...

So, does the jeweler who sold us my original diamond have a claim against me because my stone was graded by another inde. app. to be better in color and clarity? He could claim that he wasn''t qualified to grade & I took advantage. To me, it''s the same absurdity.

Fraud is a matter of state law, so I couldn''t begin to tell you what constitutes fraud in all 50 states. But, generally, fraud requires a "material" misrepresentation. In the abstract, IMO a one-grade difference is not "material" and I would think every appraiser on PS would agree. However, there could possibly be a set of facts under which it might be material, so I won''t go so far as to say the decision here is unquestionably wrong. We don''t know what was said between the jeweler and customer nor what the appraisal stated. Conceivably, a badly-worded appraisal combined with an overly enthusiastic jeweler (e.g., "I have been in this business for 30 years, and I know diamonds better than anyone in town. This is an F-VVS2, and you can take that to the bank!") and a borderline stone could create liability.

Experts are typically necessary any time you have disputes of fact that untrained jurors are not qualified to decide. Fact of life, unfortunately.

Your hypothetical is intriguing, but I think such a claim would fail because the only way you could be liable for misrepresentation in that transaction is if you were aware of the jeweler''s mistake before the sale, and even then it would be a stretch.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 7/26/2006 5:07:28 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

Date: 7/26/2006 4:38:03 PM
Author: fire&ice

I was under the assumption - from several of the appraisers on this board that fraud is when the diamond is graded two or three colors off. I suppose maybe that is criminal instead of this frivilous suit.

...

Don''t get me started about expert vs expert. So, not only do we have to hire an attorney - we have to hire experts too?
...

So, does the jeweler who sold us my original diamond have a claim against me because my stone was graded by another inde. app. to be better in color and clarity? He could claim that he wasn''t qualified to grade & I took advantage. To me, it''s the same absurdity.

Fraud is a matter of state law, so I couldn''t begin to tell you what constitutes fraud in all 50 states. But, generally, fraud requires a ''material'' misrepresentation. In the abstract, IMO a one-grade difference is not ''material'' and I would think every appraiser on PS would agree. However, there could possibly be a set of facts under which it might be material, so I won''t go so far as to say the decision here is unquestionably wrong. We don''t know what was said between the jeweler and customer nor what the appraisal stated. Conceivably, a badly-worded appraisal combined with an overly enthusiastic jeweler (e.g., ''I have been in this business for 30 years, and I know diamonds better than anyone in town. This is an F-VVS2, and you can take that to the bank!'') and a borderline stone could create liability.

Experts are typically necessary any time you have disputes of fact that untrained jurors are not qualified to decide. Fact of life, unfortunately.

Your hypothetical is intriguing, but I think such a claim would fail because the only way you could be liable for misrepresentation in that transaction is if you were aware of the jeweler''s mistake before the sale, and even then it would be a stretch.

I could see if the stone was a LARGE stone where one grade could be several thousand off - but really -a 94 pointer - that''s why I''m shaking my head.

Well, what if I did know. Of course my little 23 year old brain didn''t know - but -in my business - It''s interesting because few cases have come to light about people buying something that is better than what was represented. It''s only when the person selling the item is working as "expert agent" or when the buyer sets the price that suits like this can be won.

 

[denverappraiser]

The ‘one grade off’ rule is not sufficient a defense to justify a pattern of misrepresentation. Perhaps evidence was presented to show a pattern. Intent can also be an important issue. If evidence was presented to show that the jeweler knew it to be a lower grade, for example if the jeweler had a GIA lab report stating the lower grade, and he ''upgraded'' it without mentioning this to the customer, the courts might deem this to be a material misrepresentation. It’s also curious that the court accepted him as a qualified appraiser based on his GG, something that GIA doesn’t even teach as part of that program, but did not accept him as an expert grader because he didn’t have a lab of sufficient caliber to ‘certify’ diamonds. It seems likely that the jeweler himself was the source of this. None of the major labs describe their service as certification.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 7/26/2006 6:18:47 PM
Author: denverappraiser

The ‘one grade off’ rule is not sufficient a defense to justify a pattern of misrepresentation. Perhaps evidence was presented to show a pattern. Intent can also be an important issue. If evidence was presented to show that the jeweler knew it to be a lower grade, for example if the jeweler had a GIA lab report stating the lower grade, and he 'upgraded' it without mentioning this to the customer, the courts might deem this to be a material misrepresentation. It’s also curious that the court accepted him as a qualified appraiser based on his GG, something that GIA doesn’t even teach as part of that program, but did not accept him as an expert grader because he didn’t have a lab of sufficient caliber to ‘certify’ diamonds. It seems likely that the jeweler himself was the source of this. None of the major labs describe their service as certification.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

First, it mentions nothing about a pattern. I can't speak for intent.

But, I thought to grade diamonds - one needs the proper courses & a master set w/ decent lighting. They are making it seem like it's a science - when it is more of an art. And, I'm completely confused by the court using "certify". Isn't the receipt the same as a certificate of grading report? I simply can not understand why he wouldn't be able to grade the diamond. As it has been done for CENTURIES.

Honestly, I'm still at a loss - unless this case really was founded on a she said/he said & the defendant had to have p*issed off the Judge. It just frustrates me that a mountian was made out of a molehill. I guess it's just human nature.

 

[denverappraiser]

I agree, something was out of whack to get this ruling. I’m just speculating on what might have been presented to justify the conclusion. As was pointed out above, the appeal seems to have been based on legal technicalities, not on the grading reliability issues that we’re discussing. This is interesting in and of itself. Every GG who has ever graduated from GIA has been taught that a single color grade is within the stated grading tolerance and when we took our diamond grading practical exams, this is the standard that was applied for a passing grade. The fact that this was not the subject of the appeal suggests that there is more to this part of the story than is evident in the summary. I’m just guessing about what that might be.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) CGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[RockDoc]

But, I thought to grade diamonds - one needs the proper courses & a master set w/ decent lighting. They are making it seem like it''s a science - when it is more of an art. And, I''m completely confused by the court using "certify". Isn''t the receipt the same as a certificate of grading report? I simply can not understand why he wouldn''t be able to grade the diamond. As it has been done for CENTURIES.


Well not just "decent" lighting.. and not just master stones.

There are standards as to the lighting, types of master comparison diamonds, and other varying testing some of which is and is not practiced by everyone. Should we say "convenient" standards?

Add to this the REQUIREMENT of many of our trade associations in both GEMOLOGY and Appraising that the person''s eyes need to be tested too.

But in trial, who complied the "best" and most exactly to those standards, would probably be the winner as to the weight of evidence.

There actually is a higher court "memo" that says that if the issue is value, and the level of value is based on color, if one expert has had the eye testing for color hue discrimination done, and the other hasn''t, all testimony from the non tested expert is eliminated as evidence.

Sometimes introducing this to a lower court will result in the judge acting in accordance with that "memo". It is called persuasive authority.

Rockdoc

 

[fire&ice]

Please keep in mind - I am not dissing the reliability/importance, etc of anyone experience nor equipment. It''s just the court - with their wanting for brevity - wouldn''t take his credentials as such.

I''m assuming this is more an anomoly than mainstream rulings?

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Hi Aljdewey ~

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your feedback and your opinion.

Not everyone thinks the same, and difference of opinion is what I was looking for, as well as, how each different kind of appraisal might or might not work with different insurances and a possible claim. I think you bring up alot of valid points to consider when choosing not just a diamond, but insurance as well.

Thank you and have a great day!

Date: 7/25/2006 11:52:59 AM
Author: aljdewey

I don''t completely agree with this. I don''t think a lack of trust is the only reason to seek an independent appraisal, and I don''t think that people who want an I/A are motivated by distrust of their vendor.

I trusted WF completely during my first transaction with them; I''d been familiar with them and their practices for nearly a year when I bought from them. Having said that, I still had my engagement diamond sent to Rich Sherwood. An I/A is hired to provide you with an unbiased second opinion. He is hired by you, and therefore is charged with protecting your interests only. There''s a lot to be said for that.

For me, there are several considerations on whether or not to get an I/A, including the following:

1. How expensive is the piece? Could I easily replace it out of pocket or not? If I can readily afford to bear the cost of replacement, the proportional cost of an I/A is probably not worth it to me.

2. How fussy am I with a replacement stone? If like kind/quality is fine and you aren''t really fussy about the details, then maybe an I/A isn''t for you. In my instance, I was EXTREMELY picky about what I wanted should my stone need replacement, so I wanted the I/A.

3. Is my insurance cash out or replacement? If it''s replacement, I''d feel strongly about an I/A. If it''s cash-out, probably not as much.

For the ladies doing replacement: keep in mind that ''LIKE KIND/QUALITY'' doesn''t mean they have to provide the *exact* brand of H&A (i.e. Infinity, ACA, etc.); just that they have to replace with a comparable stone (i.e. branded stone, but not necessarily the brand you picked).

I''ve purchased a few 1K stones from WF and from Wink; I didn''t do an I/A on any of them becuase I could readily replace them if I incurred a loss. However, I couldn''t readily replace my e-ring stones or my custom e-ring setting, so those were appraised.

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Thank you Capt!

Very informative info. I will pass this onto the ladies I''ve been talking with at lunch, all this information that everyone has provided is appreciated.

Have a wonderful day!

Date: 7/25/2006 5:53:55 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
The Capt got his start in insurance defense litigation, and consequently can state several things with confidence:

1. Most insurance adjusters are badly overworked and appreciate anything that makes their jobs easier.
2. All insurance adjusters have to justify their decisions at some point to a senior adjuster further up the food chain.

Thus, regardless of what others may be doing, if you want to be sure you''re going to get your stone replaced with something as close to what you had as possible, it behooves you to submit plenty of detailed documentation of the diamond and be sure this gets made part of the policy. Thus, should you ever need to make a claim:

1. It''s crystal clear (heh

) what you were insuring; and,
2. The adjuster has plenty of paper to wave at his/her superiors to justify the claim.

That''s all you really need to know.

This is something that I didn''t think to much of, but it makes complete sense in the end.