You are here:

Auto Insurance Claims/requirement of irrelevant documents


QUESTION: Sir, My bike was stolen on 9 october, 2011 from my residence and all the formalities have been completed. I want to inform you that one day before when the theft occured i.e on 8.10.2011, my friend drove the bike as i told him drop me to the nearest taxi stand as i was getting late for joining my duty and and i told him to keep the bike at my residence after returning and to hand over the keys at my home and so he did. Now the insurance company is asking my friend's driving license which he did not possessed at that point of time. I know i allowed an authorised person to ride my bike and i am liable to be fined and i am also ready to be fined, but the insurance company told me that my claim cannot be finalised as driving license is required. Sir please tell me that is license mandatory for claiming insurance when theft occurs from residence as the main fact is that my bike was stolen which is casualty loss and the reason of theft is not because my friend drove the bike. Sir I don't find the circumstances extraordinary and also there is no negligence.

ANSWER: Hello,

I woud like to tell you would like to tell you what you would like to here with your logic,  but what you feel is right does not matter. The insurance company calls all the shots because they decide what they will do.
Of they feel that you put them under an extra risk by letting a
unlicensed driver drive the bike last, it does not matter if you pay the fine or not,
You put them in a unknown risk.
Please realize I commonly side with insureds, but here they can deny and there is nothing you you will be able to do about it. I see no place you that you could win by suing
.., you knowingly let an unlicensed driver drive the bike.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Sir, I would like to inform you that the circumstances were such that I was not cautious about searching someone who possessed driving license a s I was getting late for joining my duty and I had to ask someone to drop me to the nearest taxi stand.


It appears as if you are attempting to get me to support your argument, but you need to realize that what I think here has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The carrier wrote their own policy in which you signed, using whatever rules they decide to use. If they want to deny on the basis you had a unlicensed driver drive the bike before the theft, they can do that. They are the people with the claims money and they set the rules as they go. Anything you or I argue means nothing and that is why there are lawyers.

Whether or not you were cautious as to who drove the bike is nothing I can opine to and if the carrier does not want to cover the loss, I don't see much you can do about it, whether the decision is right or wrong.

Auto Insurance Claims

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Rob Painter, Ase, CFEI, CAFATE


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 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.

©2017 All rights reserved.