How to get your claim approved for borrowed/stolen vehicle?

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 01:19 pm Post Subject:

There's nothing like this in the Texas Personal Auto Policy. I do have a vague recollection, though, of having denied a claim or two, way back when, under the False Pretenses Exclusion in policies issued to auto dealers.

Sounds like this car may have been damaged while the occupants were attempting to evade apprehension by INS.

Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:44 pm Post Subject:

Sounds like this car may have been damaged while the occupants were attempting to evade apprehension by INS.

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 04:15 am Post Subject:

Hi daystar,

I'm interested to know more about the explanation that this gentleman offered while stating that he was not suspecting the insured. Did the CM have any specific reason for believing that the vehicle was being used for drug trafficking?

Steven

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 04:41 am Post Subject:

I decided to search for the "False Pretenses Exclusion" and found this definition along with a recent court case in April 2009 of which the FPE was used by the insurance company against a car dealership. The dealership lost by the company using this exclusion.



"false pretense, trick, and device
Refers to an exclusion in the physical damage coverage portion of a garage coverage form eliminating coverage for losses the insured suffers due to the fraudulent acts of others. Examples of false pretense include a customer absconding with an automobile on the pretense of test-driving it; the insured selling an automobile and receiving a bad check for it; and the insured selling an automobile and being instructed to deliver it to the wrong party because of fraudulent instructions. The exclusion can be negated by adding false pretense coverage on the garage liability policy. This endorsement covers the insured when a covered automobile is taken in a fraudulent manner. It also covers losses caused by the insured's acquiring an automobile from someone who did not have legal title to the vehicle. Coverage is most needed by automobile dealers but may also be desired for banks that sell repossessed autos to the public." There are other definitions on google.

Hey Steven...the insured advised that his wife's friend called him one evening and asked if he could borrow his truck as he needed to "tow" his own vehicle out of a salvage yard. Though the insured did not know the wife's "friend" nearly as much as the wife, he told his wife that it would be no problem for the friend to borrow the truck for a couple of hours. The truck was not returned within a couple of hours and the insured and his wife drove around trying to find this "friend" and his wife. After a lengthy search they went home and figured that the "friend" and "friend's wife" would bring the vehicle back in the morning as maybe there was a delay at the salvage yard.

They never saw the friend and his wife again. I am not quite sure when they were notified by Border Patrol that the vehicle had been recovered and there were suspects being held. I sent out my closing letter to the insured yesterday so I expect to hear back from them by week's end regarding the company denying the claim. Unfortunately there is not anything I can do at this time to assist them other than to tell them to file in court against their "friends" for damages (if in fact the friends were the ones apprehended). I requested the Border Patrol Report but chances are next to nothing that they will send me their report as INS is an entity unto itself and past requests for similar reports have been ignored...but I can try!

I was searching through my own auto policy and I finally found language that actually sounds very similar to the False Pretenses Exclusion only worded in a more "gentle" context. I feel that the carrier in this case was just so out there with the blatant wording of their policy regarding the exclusion. It is a high risk company with cheap rates so perhaps that explains it.

I will let you all know what happens when I hear from the insured. It is a rather interesting claim.

Again, thanks for all the posts. I have a much better understanding of this exclusion now.

Daystar

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 04:49 am Post Subject:

One more thing...

From what I understand Steven the CM was stating his own theory on the loss in that he is aware of all the drug trafficking, etc. going on in the west and close to border towns so I believe he was just "thinking out loud" regarding his perspective on the loss. He did not go as far as to make an accusation as then he would have to report fraud to the our state AG's office and I do not believe he wanted to take it that far.

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 04:53 am Post Subject:

And one more thing (sorry...it is late and I'm tired)

Yes Lori, this is a standard auto policy. I will scan the exclusion and see if I can post it here tomorrow.

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:23 am Post Subject:

Thanks daystar...would love to see that...of course you know that a commercial policy (ie dealership claim you sourced) has different wording that personal policy....

I agree quite an interesting claim, or more specifically interesting policy wording..."If" the premissive use driver caused damage to the ins vehicle during the commission of a crime...(fleeing) I can understand that...but from what I'm understanding from your claim...the carrier does not know that, nor was that the basis of their denial (correct?)...very interesting my dear 'watson' very interesting. :wink:

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 01:31 pm Post Subject:

This one could get real interesting if INS has impounded the truck. Lots of nasty little creatures lurking in the woodpile, including the exclusions for transporting for hire, and the possibility of a liability claim.

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 02:22 pm Post Subject:

Yo, daystar, the U.S. Border Patrol maintains a weekly blotter of their activities (Google cbp weekly.) It's quite detailed, and current through 5/27. If you've got a date and place, you might find your situation. Sure hope that truck wasn't a 98 Dodge.

Just can't resist trying to play Columbo, sometimes, heh.

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 03:19 am Post Subject:

The file was going through closing today but I'll get it out of the cabinet tomorrow and get the policy language scanned and posted. Yup, that was a commercial policy I quoted but I could not find anything close to a private auto policy. I am going to keep searching though.

It is really quite interesting and as flint aka Columbo (lol) stated it could be even more interesting once we find out about the truck. I'll bet there are nasty little critters lurking in that woodpile! (Along with exclusions for transporting for hire amongst other things)

Thanks for the site flint...I really appreciate that and will check it out to see if I can locate the vehicle. Very helpful to know about this. The vehicle is a 91 Ford. Columbo and Watson....I used to have a cocker spaniel named Watson. :) You all are pretty young but I remember an old TV show called "Longstreet" about a blind insurance adjuster. Loved it! Richard Chamberlain played Longstreet.

More tomorrow! I also have a new file assigned today in which I am totally amazed at the handling of the claim. I won't even go into it but it is another wierd one about a possible stolen vehicle and when I say oossibly stolen I mean it. I was speechless after reviewing the file. Talk about a total slam dunk in small claims.

Thanks again everyone.