## Facts

- A bank contracted with an armored-car service to transport sealed shipments of currency and coin between banks.
- The written contract set monthly and per-trip rates and stated that rates were tied to the company’s maximum assumed risk per shipment.
- The contract limited the armored-car service’s “maximum liability for each sealed shipment” to $30,000 and placed responsibility for any amount above $30,000 on the bank.
- During a pickup/delivery operation, guards took custody of multiple sealed bags of currency and coin, placed them in a locked armored truck, and continued handling additional bags.
- Four bags of currency went missing while the shipment was in the armored-car service’s possession and control.
- The bank claimed the loss totaled $165,450 and sued to recover that amount despite the contractual cap.

## Issues

1. Whether the bank established the armored-car service’s liability for the missing bags under bailment principles.
2. Whether a contractual limitation of liability in a bailment-for-hire is void as against public policy.
3. Whether the contract’s $30,000 per-shipment limitation was stated in clear and unmistakable language sufficient to be enforced.

## Decision

- The court affirmed a judgment awarding the bank $30,000 plus interest.
- The court held that the evidence supported liability for the loss under bailment principles based on failure to return the bailed property.
- The court enforced the contract’s $30,000 limitation of liability because it was stated in clear and unmistakable language and expressly allocated excess risk to the bank.
- The bank was not entitled to recover the full claimed loss in excess of the contractual cap.

## Legal Principles

- In a bailment for hire, failure to return bailed property supports a prima facie case against the bailee, shifting the burden to explain the loss or show it occurred without negligence.
- Liability-limiting provisions in bailment-for-hire agreements are generally disfavored, but they may be enforced when included in a valid special bailment contract.
- A bailee’s limitation of liability is enforceable only if expressed in clear and unmistakable language.
- Where the parties explicitly tie pricing to an agreed maximum risk per shipment and clearly assign responsibility for amounts above the cap to the bailor, a per-shipment cap may be enforced.

## Conclusion

The court held the armored-car service liable for the bank’s missing shipment but limited recovery to $30,000 because the bailment contract clearly and expressly capped the bailee’s liability per sealed shipment and allocated any excess loss to the bank.


Jefferson Cnty. Bank of Lakewood v. Armored Motors Serv., 366 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1961)