"As a follow-up to our conversation today, Blue Book would absolutely consider data from non-traditional temperature recording devices to be relevant evidence when assessing claims. 

 

This is consistent with section (10.2) of our Transportation Guidelines, which provides—

 

(10.2) Evidence. Produce claims are assessed based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, rather than a “clear and convincing” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. This is significant in cases where the evidence does not overwhelmingly favor one side or the other. Unlike the burdens of proof required to show fraudulent or criminal conduct, no heightened burden of proof applies when assessing disputes alleging a breach of contract. To make the point, it is sometimes explained that if a judge or arbitrator finds that 50.1% of the evidence favors one party on a given issue, and 49.9% of the evidence favors the other, the party with 50.1% of the evidence prevails on this issue. Evidence is defined very broadly and can include anything that tends to make it more likely that a fact in question is true. However, the strongest forms of evidence presented in produce transportation claims tend to be: (1) written documents produced contemporaneously with the transaction; (2) tangible evidence such as temperature tapes; (3) evidence from disinterested third parties such as USDA or CFIA inspectors; and (4) admissions against self-interest. 

 

Please let me know if you would like to discuss further."

 

Doug

 

Doug Nelson  |  Vice President, Special Services