You are here:
Auto Insurance Claims/Car theft
Advertisement
Question
In October of 2008 our car was stolen in Texas. It was recovered a few days later. The insurance automatically said it would be a total loss, as there was much damage to the car. Now, 4 months later, they denied our theft claim, stating that we gave them false info. There were 3 keys made to our car, 2 electronic keys and one standard "spare" key. The ins said that only 2 keys came with the car. We contacted Headquarters Mazda (where our car was manufactured) and found out that indeed there were 3 keys to our car. We tried giving that info to the ins co and they refused us. The denial letter says only about the keys. but when we proved them wrong, they said there were more discrepancies. None of the windows were broken and they started the car with a key. That's why they denied the claim. Basically like we had something to do with the theft. Because they are saying there was no spare key to start with, even though we have proof.
We told them that we left the spare key in the car at all times, so that's probably how they started it.
How does any professional locksmith get into your car without breaking windows. Please help me. I don't know what else to do.
Hi,,
In my opinion, a professional locksmith should never be allowed to examine a reported stolen vehicle to determine last operation. LOCKSMITHING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEFT!!!!!!!!!
It does not matter if you can produce evidence contrary to what the insurance company states.
You need an expert such as myself (I am the only game in town that has as many certifications if not more, than the insurance experts, that will take cases against these boys).
Some have tried to scare the insurance company into paying the claim by mentioning my name as their expert. This too, falls on deaf ears unless I am actually retained.
What you need is a third party expert to take apart their "forensic" report piece by piece, and it has to be proven that their methodology is flawed and that rarely do they have a factual basis for their conclusions.
I deal with these issues on a daily basis and have a tremendous success rate at exposing these guys for what they really are.
Check out http://www.autotheftexpert.com and give me a call tonight.
You will then see why the insurance companies get away with abusing the innocent insured.
Enjoy!
Rob
Related Articles
Answers by Expert:
Rob Painter, Ase, CFEI, CAFATE
Expertise
Please remember. I am not an attorney and cannot legal advice. My answers are based on my experience due to litigation I have been involved in as an expert, for both insurance companies and while oposing them opposing them. I deal with only comprehensive claims on autos related to fire and theft. I have even had the opportunity to rewrite policy coverage language as it relates to vehicle theft and forced entry for insurance defense attorneys.
Experience
Experience in the area: Working with insurance companies and attorneys on these issues for over 20 years. It is very common to have a reported stolen car with a so-called factory anti-theft system to have the theft claim denied. I have served successfully as an expert witness in the courts across the US representing the insured and their attorney revealing that the insurance expert did not take all known theories into consideration before rendering their "Forensic" conclusion. Many insurance carriers us independent "Forensic" experts to examine reported stolen vehicles commonly using flawed methodology implicating the innocent insured with the theft. My job is to determine if the insurance expert reached his conclusions based on accepted scientific principals or just net opinion with no basis other than opinion. My case record against such experts is very compelling.My resume can be seen at the catagory "Auto Theft and Prevention." In "Forensics" the scientific method must be employed. In the forensic locksmith field determining how a reported stolen vehicle was last operated, many processes cannot be duplicated and are conveniently not addressed. If they were, juries would have the opportunity to make a fair and impartial opinion at least about what the expert could or could not prove. There is a purported process determining the last key used. The chances of determining such is very rare uless the key is found in the ignition lock. Experts commonly destroy evidence as well and are rarely questioned on this event. I reveal the weakness in their testimony on such instances.
©2012 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.