Expert: webfoot - 2/1/2007

Question
I'm involved with an insurance claim for theft of an Infiniti G35.  The car was stolen at night, but the car was locked and the keys were not left in the car.  The car had one of those electronic anti-theft things on it, and the insurance company is claiming the car cannot be stolen without the key.  They claim there is no indication of forced entry into the car.  So they are heavily implying that I had something to do with stealing the car, which is not true, and they refuse to pay for the car, which was found stripped.  They denied the claim saying there was "misrepresentation" in the claim, all having to do with minor variations in my memory about insignificant things that had nothing to do with the theft. The police at the Hollywood Division of LAPD said these cars can be stolen.  ISN'T IT TRUE THAT SOMEONE COULD STEAL ONE OF THESE ELECTRONIC ANTI-THEFT CARS AND NOT FORCE ENTRY INTO THE VEHICLE, OR FORCE THE STEERING LOCK?  How do I convince the insurance company of this?  Thank you.

Answer
I've handled hundreds of auto theft claims, am also an ASE Master Technician and unless the thief had magical powers, I can see no possible way that he/she could not have driven the vehicle without the coded key and the steering column unlocked.  

One cannot force a steering column lock without breaking it and once broken, it will not lock again.  Obviously if the vehicle was found with the column locked, then whoever drove it last had a key.
Additionally, the electronic control module has to have a signal from the chip sensor in the ignition switch to allow the engine to start.  Without a factory coded key, that signal will never be sent and the vehicle could not have been driven.

Why a police officer who has not likely performed more than an oil change on a car would say otherwise is beyond me.  I can tell you that it is actually very rare for an insurance company to deny a theft claim as the evidence must be very strong.  Generally, the insurance company uses the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule instead of the generally accepted civil "preponderance of the evidence" rule when denying a theft claim.  In other words, they give much more benefit of the doubt to the insured than they are legally required to.  Once this evidence is secured by the insurance company, it can also be used for criminal prosecution for insurance fraud.  

They likely have some pretty strong evidence to back up their denial.