BU provided two cases, lost doctors records and a car. In both cases spoliation occurred not because records in general (or cars in general) are lost but because those specific ones were lost. They were in effect unique. It goes back to 'intent'. Review BU's cites and then ask yourself this (let's take the doctors records example specifically)... Had the record that was lost been one of a hundred that were lost in a box would spoliation charges have been filed? Most likely not, because there was nothing singularly interesting about that record in that context. In the other case, it wasn't that the company lost several cars and this particular one happened to be of interest, but rather that was the only(!) car that was lost. In both of these cites it was the singularity of the loss that spoke to intent and spoliation. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------