Are you turned off by sellers using the phrase...

[pendragon1998]

Are you turned off by sellers using the phrase, "if you do not buy insurance, I am not responsible for lost or damaged packages"?

 

I feel that as a seller, it is my responsibility to get the coin to the buyer or be prepared to reimburse him or her. To me, that means that if the coin doesn't arrive, then the buyer should get their money back, whether it be a refund from me personally or from an insurance claim. To that end, I usually require insurance or add it to my asking price on coins over a certain amount.

 

If I was a buyer at, e.g., amazon.com and I bought a book which never arrived, I would certainly not accept the explanation, "oh, you didn't buy insurance so we're not responsible for the book not arriving."

 

I am turned off by the phrase in question - if the buyer doesn't buy insurance, does that mean that the seller could just not ship the package and then claim it's lost and "too bad for the buyer"? That's sort of how I take that phrase. What do y'all think?

[gmarguli]

If Amazon did that, I'd probably never buy from them. As a retail business, I expect that they will get me my purchase. However, for an eBay seller I can understand why they state this. They are not in the retail business and they are, I believe, legally only obligated to ship the package with due care and once it is in the hands of the Post Office, all bets are off. However, this doesn't mean the buyer won't win a PayPal or credit card dispute.

 

When selling on eBay, I used to ship with the option of insurance and included the typical 'not responsible' language. However, with PayPal taking over for a vast majority of my payments, I realized that it wasn't a wise business move. Now everyone gets private insurance or self insurance whether they like it or not. It is just figured into my shipping I charge.

 

As a buyer I will still bid on items where I must buy insurance if I want it covered. I just factor that extra cost into my bids.

[bsshog40]

I agree with you. Although if I win something that's over $50, I usually pay for the ins.. But I do agree, it's like saying, I might send it, I might not!!

[Oldtrader3]

I always buy the insurance for anything that costs over about $25.00. That is here in Washington state. In California, the Post Office lost (?) a small percentage of my coins when the package had "coin" in the return address, insured or not. In California, I usually used FEDEX overnight even though they won't insure coins. I never had a problem using FEDEX overnight.

[coinman1794]

Some sellers will make shipping optional because they are trying to please buyers who complain about the expense. However, it is bad business to allow your buyer to get himself/herself in to the potentially serious possition of not having insurance on a package, in my opinion.

 

 

[pendragon1998]

My approach, mentioned before, is usually to make insurance optional below a certain level - usually $50 - and mandatory above it. That puts insurance at around 3% of the total cost.

[BULLY]

Are you turned off by sellers using the phrase, "if you do not buy insurance, I am not responsible for lost or damaged packages"?

 

I feel that as a seller, it is my responsibility to get the coin to the buyer or be prepared to reimburse him or her. To me, that means that if the coin doesn't arrive, then the buyer should get their money back, whether it be a refund from me personally or from an insurance claim. To that end, I usually require insurance or add it to my asking price on coins over a certain amount.

 

If I was a buyer at, e.g., amazon.com and I bought a book which never arrived, I would certainly not accept the explanation, "oh, you didn't buy insurance so we're not responsible for the book not arriving."

 

I am turned off by the phrase in question - if the buyer doesn't buy insurance, does that mean that the seller could just not ship the package and then claim it's lost and "too bad for the buyer"? That's sort of how I take that phrase. What do y'all think?

 

I'm not turned off by it, because I get the idea behind it -- that they cannot account for the mail service. However, I think I get your point, that it's really all in the delivery.

 

Further, I've only just BEGUN to look into selling on eBay, for all these years, I've been a buyer. So I've been doing lots of reading over the past few months. From what I understand, for SELLERS to be protected, under PayPals SELLER protection (if an item was not delivered), there must be proof of delivery for items under a certain amount, and for items OVER a certain amount, there must be a confirmed SIGNATURE for delivery.

 

Perhaps more experienced sellers/PayPal users can confirm the details of this.

 

However, that brings me back to the DELIVERY of the message, and basically what Pendragon is talking about in the realm of customer service.

 

If PayPal requires that the Seller protect him or herself with evidence of delivery or tracking so that they will protect the seller from charge-backs and other such issues of non-receipt, it seems that sellers should probably build the insurance fee into the item, or simply make it mandatory, for the betterment of all involved.

 

Personally, as I started to sell, I planned to make insurance mandatory, and delivery confirmation or signature confirmation, depending on the price point. I would also choose the appropriate shipping method to make it most economical for the buyer, such as a flat rate box, or if a high dollar item(s), Registered Mail, where it is not only THE MOST SECURE, but where insurance rates drop compared to regular "Insured Mail," presumably because it IS so secure. All of which I would explain clearly up front of course, and in the case of Registered Mail, remind the buyer that it tends to move more slowly, because of the security measures involved en-route, so I don't get dinged with "slow shipping" stars even if I shipped it the same day, but it didn't arrive for 7-10 days.

 

I think I wandered a little there, but since I was going to be starting out, I am a little curious about how those things work, requirement wise for seller protection.

 

I can speak for my own buyer perception anyway, having been one for 7+ years. As a seller, that's ALL new territory.

[CHABSENTIA]

I just won a coin on Ebay. In the Sellers terms he stated that Insurance was so much for every $50.00. When I won the coin and went though Pay Pal "Insurance was not offered ".

 

I had checked the Sellers feedback earlier and two had gave negative feedback :"that the Seller had made the statement that he would no be responsible etc and that they had paid but the package arrived with no Insurance on it".

 

I suspect that the Seller just changed his policy as a result .As I mentioned earlier I have no problem with paying $6.50 for postage and the Seller only pays $1.47 in postage. I have agrred to the $6.50 charge.

 

If Insurance is offered and the item is over a certain value then I will pay the Insurance for peace of mind.If the seller states that "they will not be responsible for any items lost in the mail unless you purchase Insurance" then I want to know what they will do in case of loss.

 

Other posters have said that many are 'self insured". This is fine but I would still like to know what they will do in case of loss..

[Zoins]

If you use PayPal, that doesn't mean anything. IMO, that's often used by sellers to create FUD and scare buyers.

 

Another nice seller practice is to not accept returns by omission, saying nothing about returns in the auction. It would be nice if eBay would require every auction to have an explicitly stated return policy, whether returns can be made or if there are no returns. I think eBay been siding with the sellers on this issue. I'd speculate this contributes to buyer dissatisfaction which is the driver behind the new changes.

[DC Dawg]

Are you turned off by sellers using the phrase, "if you do not buy insurance, I am not responsible for lost or damaged packages"?

This is the result of scams that occurred a few years ago when people would claim packages were lost in the mail. Then someone who sold electronics funded an investigation and found a dozen people who were purposely doing this and re-selling the "lost" items on eBay.

 

I have a statement like this in the auctions I run. I see it as protection from the slightly-less-than-honest and the amateur thief. It gives others a pause to discuss issues with me before taking action on their own. I have had problems--but I have found ways to satisfy the customer without resorting to name calling, feedback wars, and the like.

 

Maybe it scares people away. So be it. At least I can say that my risk loss is less than 1-percent, which is great for a small seller!

 

Scott

[BillJones]

As you buyer, you should always pay for the insurance. If you don't then it should be YOUR PROBLEM and YOUR LOSS. I really dislike cheapskate buyers who refuse to pay for the insurance.

 

Back in the days where I was messing with selling on eBay, a buyer refused to pay the insurance in a cheap item (less than $50). That put me in a bind. If I did not pay for the insurance and the post office lost or damaged the item it was my loss. If the buyer did not get his coin, he'd give me a negative. If I paid for the insurance I would make very little on the sale.

 

To put it bluntly that cheapskate buyer had me over the barrel.

 

In short I have no sympathy for your position and support the seller for saying that 100%.

 

[MikeInFL]

Cheapskate buyer or not, as a seller it is your responsibility to ensure delivery of the item, regardless of if insurance is chosen. If I were selling coins, I would not make it optional so as to not introduce the possibility of the issue you refer to.

[BillJones]

Cheapskate buyer or not, as a seller it is your responsibility to ensure delivery of the item, regardless of if insurance is chosen. If I were selling coins, I would not make it optional so as to not introduce the possibility of the issue you refer to.

 

I agree, and I had that in the "terms of sale" section in my eBay offerings. This person FLATLY REFUSED to pay the couple bucks that were required. He really broke the contract, but was it worth it to go through of hastle of voiding a $38 sale with eBay?

 

EVERY AUCTION in which I have placed bids have made it clear that the buyer is responsible for shipping and insurance.

[PerryHall]

Why even make insurance optional? It's there to protect the seller and not the buyer.

[DC Dawg]

Cheapskate buyer or not, as a seller it is your responsibility to ensure delivery of the item, regardless of if insurance is chosen. If I were selling coins, I would not make it optional so as to not introduce the possibility of the issue you refer to.

If you were selling coins, you would understand what sellers have to go through!

 

First, how can anyone ensure delivery with a service that has no guarantees. If a coin is sent via the USPS, the only way to guarantee delivery is to use registered, certified, or Express mail. Insured mail is not guaranteed. All three options are expensive for the "average" sale. If this was the only choice you had, then the cost of shipping would double or triple what they are now in order to cover the costs.

 

So on one hand you want customer service. On the other hand you want responsibility. You want the choice as to how to send your $25 slab or your $10 Buffalo nickel, but you want me to guarantee the US Postal Service will do its job. You want me to take the risk for the carrier? Let me ask... would you take the risk for the Postal Service?

 

BTW... there have been problems with UPS employees stealing packages. Several businesses have stopped using UPS because of thousands of dollars in losses. And UPS is worse than the USPS when filing insurance claims!

 

The mitigation is insured mail. If you want the mitigation, pay for it. I give you the option. Otherwise, if you want to take the risk, that is your decision. I am not going to force someone to pay an extra $1.65 on a $1-50 purchase if they don't want to pay that.

 

BTW: It is my policy to require insurance for any sale that is over $100. It seems that few complain about this for sales over $100.

 

It's the balance of customer service versus protecting my income. Unfortunately, with your argument, I cannot win, so I will continue to do business like I have and make insurance optional... but I will not take responsibility for the US Postal Service!!

 

Scott

[gmarguli]

Cheapskate buyer or not, as a seller it is your responsibility to ensure delivery of the item, regardless of if insurance is chosen. If I were selling coins, I would not make it optional so as to not introduce the possibility of the issue you refer to.

 

To clarify, this is your opinion, not legal fact. Non-business sellers need only ship the package. Business sellers must deliver, but they can also create a contract that states pretty much anything including "I drop it in the mail box and you take the risk if it never arrives and if you don't like this, buy somewhere else".

[dooly]

I put this on my sales as i suspect that on a number of occasions that i have been ripped off by "some" overseas buyers.. one claimed the money back from paypal and then bid and won more lots from me the week after.and refused insurance option... would you if you thought that i was keeping the coins ??

 

also i put it on my listings but it makes no difference as if i have been payed by PayPal they just give the bidder there money back no matter how much you protest..

 

also in the uk you have to fill in a lost mail form at the post office (registered or not) to find lost mail which takes 6 weeks to come back to you so even if you did this with the initial waiting time of at least 2 weeks for the post to get to say the USA you would be over the 90 day rule on ebay and then you have to wait 4-6 weeks for the package to be returned or refunded then send the refund to the buyer or what if they say its been delivered the the persons address then you have to post this evidence to ebay/paypal and argue with them to refund you the money and the coin was won for $10 .. I think the buyer has it easy myself and the least they could do is pay the insurance but i would say that only 5-10% of my winning bidders actually take up the offer of insurance.

 

thats my over thanks for the post its very intresting

 

dooly

 

[World Colonial]

I agree with you. I do not interpret this type of statement that way but others might. If it were not for the Paypal rules, I would give someone that option but since I underatand that you will lose a dispute without proof of tracking, I do not give an option for no insurance unless I ship it to a US address. (That is, unless the coin is a cheap one.)

 

Because of the lack of reliability of some foreign postal services, I am considering eliminating Paypal as an option in some instances as a test for coins above a certain amount (say $500). I'll probably sell it for less but at least I'll know that when I get paid I will get to keep the money I rightfully earned. I'll do everything to get the item to the buyer safely but do not automatically consider myself liable for a buyer's loss just because the postal service did not do their job. Here is what I believe is a reasonable process:

 

If the listing states that no insurance is offered or the buyer declines it, then the buyer should expect that it is sent at their risk. I would still state this in the listing.

 

If the buyer pays for insurance but the listing does not say that the lot is sent at the buyers risk, then I believe that the seller should cover the loss even if the insurance claim is denied as long as the buyer cooperated to file the claim. I have two claims open now and this is what I did because I did not make this clear in the listing. (Lesson learned.) If the claim is denied because the buyer did not (for example) provide any documentation, then (hopefully) no one would expect any seller to take that loss. That would be preposterous.

 

If the listing states the lot is sent at the buyer's risk and insurance is purchased, the listing could say that the buyer will not be reimbursed if the claim is denied and it is not the fault of the seller. I say could because another option is to make it clear that the bidder needs to contact the seller for all the specifics, as I have never seen this type of language included in a listing though I believe this is implied.

 

Ultimately, as long as the seller makes the terms clear and acts in good faith, I believe that these three options (and possibly others I have not included) are all reasonable. If the buyer does not agree with the terms, they should not bid on the lot. To not agree with something along the lines of my example is, in my opinion, expecting a one sided arrangement for the buyer. I am more of a buyer than a seller but have come to appreciate the difficulties sellers experience in my limited selling, especially shipping outside the United States. Unless you have been a seller, you may not know what that is like.

 

 

 

[Revenant]

I always buy insurance (unless the item is so cheap I'm willing to take the loss) and if the seller's description/terms don't explictly offer insurance as an option or say that it's included in the S&H fee then I contact them and ask for their policy before I'll bid. This has protected me from problems in the past. I only mind under a few circumstances:

 

1: The seller wants $7-9 for shipping a single coin and then they want extra for insurance. I'm don't mind them covering their packaging/gas etc but when you start charging 8 to 10 dollars to insure and ship a $30 item you've gone too far!

 

2: The post office charges $1.65 for insurance and the seller charges $2.00+ for "optional insurance" or they "aren't responsible." At this point they're trying to make money off of me buying insurance and I REALLY dislike that.

[pendragon1998]

The thing is, with paypal, the seller is responsible to get the coin to you, regardless of whether the buyer opts to pay for insurance. If the coin is lost and there's no proof of delivery, the buyer will just get a paypal refund. For paypal transactions, insurance is to protect the seller, not the buyer. Whether the seller uses the phrase about not being reponsible if no ins. is bought is beside the point - if the transaction is paid via paypal, then the seller has to prove the item was delivered, period. Honestly, I think that's fair.

[CHABSENTIA]

This has some truth to it. I have had each if my three dos neutered and one had to go uner to have a tooth removed . Some time before that I was always asked by the Tech if I wanted to pay for Pain Pills. My response was that " What a question. Who wouldn't pay for it?" Her response was that I would be surprised by the number of people who refused it and some have even made the statement that " animals don't feel pain".

 

I mentioned this to the Vet and she agreed and told me that her Policy was changing so that she would not operate on people who refused it.

 

We aren't talking about big money here. Maybe $5.00. My response was that if a Person couldn't afford to pay for for the well being of their Pet/s that they shouldn't be able to have them.

 

 

I did win an auction on E Bay last week. I needed a 1878 7/8 Tail Feather Morgan for a lesser set. The bidding looked low earlier and I watched it and ended up getting it for $103.50. It is NGC Certified and a MS62. THe Seller did not offer Insurance and stated it. I noticed in his feedback that a few people had complained about him charging Insurance and not paying for it as it wasn't on the parcel. I would have paid if it had been offered as I have seen this particular coin selling for above $200.00. I would have doen it for Peace of Mind.

 

I received the Coin but I think that I should know the Sellers Policy if it is lost regardless of his/her actions.I know that Insured packages are treated differently and ones with delivery confirmation are scanned by the Carrier as they are put in the Mailbox.I also know that some carriers might read your copy of Coin World or Playboy etc before it is delivered.

 

It should be the responsibilty of the Seller to ensure deleivery but you and I both know that bith Sller and Buyer rooll the dice. If the Buyer chooses not to purchase it then this is one thing. If the Buyer pays for it but the Seller doesn't and decides to roll the dice then this is another thing and the Buyer has no control except to depend on the sellers willingness to make it good which is also a toss up.

 

I don't mind paying $6.50 if it is the amount listed and the Seller only pays $1.47. I agreed on the $6.50 etc. Some Sellers will state that the $6.50 includes Insurance and some say the cost is $6.50 and the Insurance is extra..

 

 

[CHABSENTIA]

As I have said in other posts in this particular Forum I agree with that statement.

 

I want to know about the situation where I Pay $6.00 for Postage and $1.65 for Insurance and I get the small package and the total postage is $1.47 and it is not insured at least through the Post Office as the carrier just leaves it in the mail box.

 

I wrilte the Seller and ask him what will happen in the Future if the Coin was lost as there was no indication of Insurance and his response is "what do you care? You got your coin.".

 

I have no problem in paying the Postage stated and the Insurance if it is optional but I need to know what the Seller is going to do to make it good if it is lost and there is no indication of Insurance.The buyer can only know after the fact if it has not been applied and then it is too late..

 

I have payed $6.50 to some sellers and receved the Coin by Priority mail. Others I have payed $6.50 and got it by snail mail with $1.47 postage affixed to it.The one mentioned above I not only paid $6.50 but also $1.65 for optional Insurance and received a package with $1.47 postage affixed to it and no Insurance purchased through the U.S.P.S and then got a crappy answer when I asked about it.

 

 

Your method would be fine if EBay were to make it Mandatory for ll Sellers but then we both know that many would complain.Right now there is no Uniform polocy and that is the problem.

[PerryHall]

I mentioned this to the Vet and she agreed and told me that her Policy was changing so that she would not operate on people who refused it.

 

Your vet operates on people? Yikes!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CHABSENTIA]

A little error there. I meant animals. I guess I confused them with the "people" who treated them like "dogs". My mistake

[World Colonial]

My description of fair would be whatever the buyer and seller agree to as long as both understand what that is.

 

With Paypal, they have made a business decision to implement this policy and sellers can either take it or leave it. And since many buyers will not bother to bid on an item if they cannot pay with Paypal, sellers for the most part choose to accept it because not to do so will either mean no sale or a lower sale price. It is a risk reward trade-off and the amount of leverage the buyer and seller both have.

 

Given what most collectors buy, I would not buy from someone who does not take Paypal or equally probable, on eBay at all. Most of these coins are available elsewhere and it is not clear to me why anyone who is worried about being ripped-off buys there at all. Are the prices that much lower? That does not seem likely. Perhaps those who live in small towns have no local option, but I would expect that they could find this material from a dealer elsewhere. And whether this risk remains would then depend upon whether they take Paypal or credit cards.

[CHABSENTIA]

I was checking out the Morgans on Teletrade yesterday and some body had bid $340.00 for an 1880S Morgan in an NGC holder at MS65. You can obtain the same from a Dealer or on EBAY anywhere from 130.00 to $150.00 so I would say that in many cases things are cheaper on EBay.

 

On Ebay I have seen several instances where a Buyer has bid more for a coin when you can get the same exact date, holder and grade cheaper via a BIN on the same page.

 

To agree the Transaction has to be equal on both sides. If the Seller in his/her terms states that the Postage is $6.50 and I bid then I am agreeing to that $6.50 and I don't care if the Seller only spends $1.50 as long as it reaches me in a reasonable length of time.

 

If the Seller states in his/her terms that they will not be responsible for Items lost in the Mail unless the Buyer purcahses Insurance the I do not have any problem with that.

 

I pay the Insurance for Peace of mind and an expectation that should the item become lost that I have an expectation of reimbursement.

 

If the Seller accepts the money for the Insurance and there is no evidence of it being purchased through the USPS where the Package was shipped and I only find this out after the fact because I did not recieve the coin then why do I need to jump through more hoops trying to prove that I paid for Insurance when the Seller can't provide a receipt and refuses to acknowledge it.

 

You just have to jump through a different series of hoops with Pay Pal assuming you have paid through them. Meanwhile while you are jumping through the hoops there is a chance that you will either miss another chance that might arise or one might not appear again.

 

The USPS will take a little extra care with the Insured package that it won't take with the other and there is a paper trail with the Insured one.This will not happen with the USPS when the Seller takes the extra fees and does not apply it.

 

 

[World Colonial]

[To agree the Transaction has to be equal on both sides.

 

If by this you mean that the both the buyer and seller need to state their intentions and then act in good faith to perform according to them, then I completely agree with you. It is what I have been trying to say in my prior posts on this thread.

 

But if you mean anything else or additionally by "equality" then I do not understand what you mean. Some of the scenarious I included in my prior posts on this topic are probably not considered "equal" by some but I would consider them "fair" as long as they are clearly stated. And if there is any doubt (because misunderstandings do occur), then the bidder needs to ask questions and the seller needs to clarify.

 

To me, it at least partly comes down to a question of leverage. How in demand is the item that the seller has to offer? With most coins, the answer is "not very" which is why when I hear some of this that some people put up with, I simply do not understand it. The way I express my dissatisfaction with bad service is to leave and not come back. And this description is true of most eBay sellers or dealers who offer US coins that most of the collectors on these boards buy. Not all of them but many or most of them.

 

But when you are talking about something scarce or rare, then it is only natural that the seller is going to have the advantage. And I do not mean this in the sense that they are necessarily trying to squeeze every cent out of the buyer (though some act that way), but in the distribution of risk assumed by the buyer or the seller.

 

On the occassions when I sell, I am almost always selling to buyer's outside the US which I do not know if anyone who has commented here other than GMarguli does at all or especially regularly. (Because if they did, I do not believe many of these comments would be made.) Now because I can get a much better price from a foreign buyer, I am willing to accept the risk of loss and it is only reasonable that there should be some trade-off because there is no free lunch.

 

But if this were not the case, then the only way I would sell to these foreign buyer's is if they agreed to accept the risk of loss because I would be absolutely insane to enter into this transaction on any other basis and so would anyone else. (This is not a charity.) The bidder would know in advance that there is a POSSIBILITY that they might not receive the item and suffer a partial or complete loss because I have no control over the postal service and I have no guarantee that the claim will be paid in full (because there could be a dispute over what the item is worth). This is not the way I list my auctions but depending upon the coin I was trying to sell, I would have no problem doing this.

[CHABSENTIA]

Your first sentence is exactly what I mean.

 

Let me give it again. The Seller in their Terms states that Postage is $6.50. I have paid $6.00 and $6.50 and received the coin via Priority mail and I have paid the same amount and received a coin via first class with $1.47 postage on it.

 

The point is that that the Seller has stated that the charge for postage will be $6,50 and by bidding I have agreed to apy the $6,50

 

There are some instances where the Seller states that Insurance is included in the Price of Postage.

 

If a Coin is over a certain value/cost I will readily pay Insurance for peace of mind etc and I know that the USPS exercises more care over an insured or registerred package over one that hasn't insurance.

 

 

There are Sellers who will emphasis that they will not be responsible for items lost through the USPS if the item is lost and the Buyer does not purchase optional Insurance. I know this is necessary as there are Buyers who don't want to pay the extra fees and still want to whine if they don't pay and the item is lost etc.

 

Where I have the problem is when I pay $6.00 for regular postage and $1.65 for optional insurance and the package arrives with postage of $1.47 and left in my mailbox and I don't have to sign for it.I know that the Insurance has not been purchased.

 

This time I received the Coin but what happens if this particular package does not show up after 10 days or so. . There has not been any Insurance purchased through the USPS but I know all this after the fact.Not only will I have to try ann validate the situation but from that point on I will always have to wonder about the security of the Package and whether the package has been insured etc and what the Seller will do if the package is lost and Insurance has not been purchased.

 

 

Selling outside the U,S, is a different thing entirely. Having lived in Italy for three years I know the situation regarding the Postal system,

[Houston Investor]

Wouldn't the seller lose a paypal dispute (insurance or no insurance) if he could not prove via tracking the item was delivered to the buyer?

[CHABSENTIA]

I mentioned earlier that I saw a Program on CNBC last month regarding E Bay. There was a situation where a Buyer bought a Necklace for his wife for $40.00. When he received the Necklace it was damaged. The Buyer returned it because the Seller had a three day return Policy. The Seller refused to refund his Money and ignored him..

 

Having paid for the item he contacted Pay Pal. Pay Pal then refused to pay as they wanted to see the Damaged object for whatever reason. The Buyer could not show them the damaged object because he had to return it under the three day return Policy of the Seller. Eventually he got his Money back .

 

Who knows what Pay Pal will do and if their Policies conform to the Sellers and Buyers in every instance.

 

What the Seller could do is pay for a delivery confirmation . With the delivery confirmation the Seller would have evidence if the Buyer received the item.

 

The problem here is that even if the if the Seller purchases a Delivery confirmation and the Item does get lost then there is no evidence of Delivery and the Seller will know the item has not been delivered,however, if he has not purchased the Insurance even though the Buyer paid extra for it because the "Seller claimed that he/she would not be responsible etc" then you are at the Mercy of the Seller and Pay Pal.