After the Clients’ Legacy Diamond Is Lost in Transit, Each Side Sues the Other

Alyssa and Greg had always believed in the importance of family heirlooms. That’s why they cherished the 3-carat oval diamond ring that had been passed down through Alyssa’s family for generations. It was originally purchased by her great-great-grandfather who worked extremely hard to purchase the ring and propose to the love of his life. For Alyssa and Greg, it was a tangible reminder of family memories they held dear.

As their 10th wedding anniversary approached, Alyssa and Greg envisioned having the diamond set into a new band and updating it in a way that honored its history while celebrating a decade of marriage. After researching local jewelers, they decided to visit Timeless Luxe, a high-end store with a reputation for exceptional custom work and customer service. During their visit, they met Christina, the store’s owner. She listened carefully as Alyssa and Greg described their vision for the ring: a vintage-inspired design with the original diamond set into a band featuring sapphire side stones.

The next day, Christina provided Alyssa and Greg with a detailed CAD rendering of the new design, ensuring their vision was captured perfectly. She outlined the four-week turnaround time and reassured them that all pieces in the store’s care were insured. Impressed by her professionalism, Alyssa and Greg felt confident moving forward. They paid the $1,500 deposit and looked forward to being reunited with a reimagined heirloom.

However, their excitement quickly turned to shock, because when they returned to pick up the ring, Christina informed them that the 3-carat diamond was missing. It was only then that Alyssa and Greg learned the diamond had been sent to a third-party jeweler, a detail the couple was never informed of. They had assumed all work would be done in-house. Christina explained that the package was stolen in transit. Alyssa and Greg were devastated to discover that the diamond itself had not been properly insured during the shipping process.

The store’s response compounded the couple’s frustration. They had been assured the ring was insured, yet the store claimed the theft was an unforeseeable incident and the diamond’s insurance coverage had been overlooked. After several attempts to resolve the situation, including an offer from Timeless Luxe to replace the diamond with a different stone or provide a refund based on the diamond’s fair market value, Alyssa and Greg felt that their trust in the store had been broken beyond repair. The diamond was part of their family’s history, and no replacement could ever bring it back.

Feeling overwhelmed and unheard, Alyssa shared their story on social media. The post went viral, with hundreds of people expressing their support and disgust over what they saw as negligence on the part of Timeless Luxe. As the story spread, the store began to face mounting public scrutiny. Customers started to question the integrity of the store’s business practices, and negative reviews flooded in.

In response, Timeless Luxe issued a public statement, defending their actions and claiming they had attempted to offer a fair resolution. However, Alyssa and Greg still felt the store had never truly taken responsibility for the loss. The lack of compensation and the failure to provide clarity about the insurance situation left them feeling angry.

Alyssa and Greg filed a lawsuit against Timeless Luxe for the loss of the diamond, seeking over $75,000 in damages for the emotional distress and financial loss they had suffered. Timeless Luxe counter-sued Alyssa and Greg for defamation, claiming that their viral social media posts had damaged the store’s reputation. The store argued that they had acted in good faith and that the public statements made by the couple were damaging to their business.

The case became a flashpoint, raising questions about the responsibilities of businesses when handling irreplaceable customer possessions, the trust that must exist between jewelers and clients, and the potential consequences of social media for both consumers and businesses.

Gene P.
Tuscaloosa, AL

It is our responsibility as jewelers to ensure the safety of our customer’s heirloom pieces. This happened to me several years ago when a FedEx package was stolen at the FedEx hub in Memphis. We were up front with our customers from the moment the package was missing. We did everything in our power to find the package, even touring the FedEx facility in Memphis. We did everything possible to ensure the customers that we would go the extra mile to recover or replace their piece to their satisfaction. My wife and I cried at the counter with our customer who had lost a great-grandmother’s sapphire band diamond ring. We made it through this catastrophe, but not easily. There were twelve pieces of jewelry in this package. We kept our customers and did not have one negative review. Being completely up front immediately, I feel, is the reason we made it through this horrible problem.

Jack L.
Lake Forest, CA

The key phrase in this scenario is “…the diamond had been sent to a third-party jeweler, a detail the couple was never informed of.” That fact is entirely unforgiveable. Had they been informed, the couple might have opted to drive the stone to the third-party jeweler or take the project to another jeweler where it would have stayed in-house for the entire process. There is a sense of “coldness” here on the part of the jeweler, ignoring the sentimental value of the stone; no replacement stone or market-value financial compensation will comfort the couple. More empathy — both in person and on social media — on the part of the jeweler might have gone a long way toward soothing them. The jeweler should have been transparent up front; now, she deserves what happens to her reputation (for “lying by omission”) and to pay punitive damages as well as replacement value for violating the couple’s confidence in an industry that is allegedly built on trust.

Peter T.
Show Low, AZ

The “sentimental” attachment the customer had is clearly B.S. They want money, period. That said, Timeless failed in their duty to let the customer know the diamond would be sent out of the store and only the replacement value could be insured. Given that, the insurance companies tend to reject loss claims, Timeless would be financially responsible whether they used an insurance company or not. From the way the scenario is written, Timeless was slow to assure that they would replace the diamond. If the customer actually had sentimental feelings, the weak offer to pay “fair market value” would be an insult. Since this was handled so badly from the beginning, it is unlikely that the customer will ever have trust in Timeless again. At this point, Timeless should make a somewhat high fair market offer, in writing, and let the chips fall where they may.

Richard W.
Marco Island, FL

Never would I ever send out a customer’s important diamond, especially the after the story they told about it. I learned the hard way when a Miami lapidary shop “misplaced” a sentimental 2-carat green sapphire they lost in their shop; I got the impression they made no effort to find it. I had to make good for it and replaced it out of pocket. To make matters worse, the lapidary shop avoided me for months and months until I sought legal counsel. They finally settled with me. My customers were very understanding about the mishap; they wound up with a larger, brighter sapphire than the chipped original. It was a lesson learned.

Michael J.
Port Charlotte, FL

So, they were fine with it being insured while in the care of the store at first; why did that change? Even though the client didn’t know their job was being sent off-site, the store is trying to make them whole. What would the couple do if the store had been robbed and their diamond taken? Emotions are understandably high, but take a step back and a deep breath, use some logic, and realize the only two real options are diamond replacement or monetary compensation. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone will bow to the threat of a 1-star review. As for the shipment not being insured, that is the store’s problem, not the client’s. I have to say the store is doing what they can to appease the now unrealistic clients and don’t think they’re in the wrong with their countersuit.

Sherrie L.
Sharon, WI

They are only asking $75,000 in emotional distress for losing a five-generation heirloom? The store’s failure to tender a groveling, tearful apology is how the reputation was damaged.

How to maybe salvage some tatters of reputation: 1. Replace the stone with a stone of the same size and grade, or higher. 2. Pay the $75,000 plus any legal fees the couple incurred in exchange for taking down all social media posts and an agreement to not post anything further (what they said to friends and family is a ship that sailed). 3. Apologize, apologize, apologize.

Oh, and do better. Obviously, the procedures for insuring and tracking shipments of customer-owned goods need to be completely overhauled. If we maintain a narrative that diamonds are the symbols of emotional connection and heirlooms rather than pretty but completely fungible assets, treat them that way. If the vet killed your beloved dog through neglect and carelessness, and then said, “Oh, we’ll get you another one, same breed,” how satisfied would you feel?

Megan C.
Poulsbo, WA

We have clients sign a waiver before sending out ANY gemstone or diamond they own to a third-party jeweler. Our business is based on our integrity and client’s trust in our professionalism. Years ago, I was personally responsible for facing a similar situation where we lost track of an heirloom ring that was in for repair. I faced telling the client about the situation and offered a solution. He was justifiably upset but let us remake his wedding ring. I made sure to overcommunicate with him about the process. The result was a more comfortable ring than he had worn for over 40 years! He became a valuable friend until he passed away. I believe in the power of being direct, taking accountability for my actions and responses, then exceeding my clients’ expectations. Most people will respond positively if they are treated with respect. The jeweler in the Real Deal could have avoided so much heartache with better quality control steps, communication, transparency and most of all, accountability!

Mary R.
San Marcos, TX

This is an unfortunate situation. I think the store should get the lawyers and the parties involved as soon as possible to negotiate a settlement. The store might not have a good legal standing of the defamation of character if the plaintiff posted all information that was true and correct. The store should agree to a settlement of whatever dollar amount will make the plaintiff happy and agree to an added requirement that they post on social media that the jewelry store has paid them for their loss, pain and suffering, and they are satisfied with the settlement. The plaintiff should agree that the jewelry store can post this statement on marketing materials and social media to show to clients and future clients that they are a company that takes responsibility for any problems that arise and they don’t shy away from taking care of their clients.

Jim D.
Kingston, NH

Timeless Luxe is in deluxe doo-doo. Obviously, they care more about sales and less about service. First, the shipping method for so valuable a stone should have been deluxe, and second, the insurance on the stone should have been deluxe, two major mistakes that can’t be corrected after the loss. From the text, the clients were not notified of the loss until they came in to pick up the ring — bad, bad, bad. The clients should have been notified immediately with much handwringing and apologies. The client should have been asked how they could be made whole. From the sound of things, Timeless Luxe went on the defensive, the clients were not well treated and they deserve the scrutiny and bad reviews they received. Sounds like it is time for the owners to polish their resumes and find something else to do.

David B.
Calgary, AB

Christina and her store are in the wrong on so many aspects. Unless it is hand to hand, when it leaves the store, it should have been disclosed. When shipping out, full insurance or even over-insured is the only option. Finally, offering market value is a guise to save money. Shame on her. She should have found another 3-carat oval that was better quality and offered it and the ring at no charge as compensation. The client should never have been told the diamond was under-insured. That is all the store’s problem. Now dealing with the fallout shows why working with the client has to be done before it gets out to social media. Further inflaming the situation with a defamation suit is ridiculous. She will not win in court, and if she had some form of a win, the compensation is unlikely to cover the legal costs. Then take into account the bad social media presence, and the store loses on every count. Nobody likes to lose money, but in this case, pay up.

R.H. W.
Avon, CT

Timeless Luxe really dropped the ball. The customers should have been informed the stone and work were not done in house. They should have also been informed the package went missing and then been asked what they would want to do. The store did not truly listen or perhaps hear what the customers were saying. Frankly, the couple should have NEVER been told that the stone was not insured. That is completely on the business. Had the store listened to the couple, it possibly would never have escalated into a social media firestorm or a lawsuit. Unfortunately, there won’t be a good ending to this tale.

Marcus M.
Midland, TX

Using Parcel Pro or Jewelers Mutual shipping platform would have allowed them to properly insure the package. Jewelers Mutual could have also helped in the restoration. The store goofed and should have been completely up front with the couple on their custom process. But I feel like the compensation offer was pretty fair considering anything you offer someone on the loss of such a sentimental piece isn’t going to work. There are a lot of emotions here, and this is a tricky situation. You can profusely apologize to the couple, but at the end of the day, you still can’t get that diamond back, and that’s where the negative emotions are. It also sucks that the couple went to social media with this instead of sitting down with the owner of Timeless Luxe to try to work through the situation. Honestly, I’m not sure how I would handle this situation. It’s a lose-lose for both parties.

Beth G.
Endwell, NY

The most basic form of trust is through honest and open communication. A lot of the frustration could have been resolved by being open about sending the diamond to a third party so the customer could make an educated decision. Additionally, the store should have insured the package for the full value of the diamond and the ring at its current market value, if not more, due to it being a family heirloom and knowing so. We all know things happen, and the safe bet is always to CYOA.

Leo A.
St. Louis, MO

Insured or not is irrelevant, as the store did what the insurance would have done, replace or compensate. But the key is that the store should have called the customer once the loss occurred, not wait for the customer to show up to pick up the new ring. They blindsided the customer, which triggers mistrust and anger.