Expert: Rob Painter, ASE, CFL, CFEI - 11/15/2008

Question
I recently had a 2008 suabaru legacy stolen from in front of my home. There was no broken glass, the vehicle was locked and both keys are accounted for. No drag marks were seen at the scene and nobody saw anything. What are the possible ways the vehicle was taken, and what can I do in the future to prevent the crime? If my insurance company denies the claim because the vehicle is "unsealable" what counter arguments do I have?
thanks in advance for your time,
Regards,
Ryan

Answer
Hi Ryan,

Sounds like I am getting questions on a reported stolen car from an insurance company play book. This is not a referrence to you but to the canned questions they ask of the insured. No broken glass means there was no broken glass. What has that go to do with anything? Ever hear of a slim jim? (A tool slid between the door glass and the door to unlock the inner door lock mechanisms). There are all sorts of car opening tools available on the Internet to anyone! Chances are that you locked the vehicle with the keyless entry transmitter (clicker, fob, etc.) Range can be affected many ways and you may have gone through the motions of locking the doors, but maybe the doors did not lock. Interestingly enough, 99.9% of the vehicles we have examined over the last 20 years are unlocked at the time of our examination. Does this mean 99.9% of the insureds are lying about locking their car? Of course not!

Drag marks is a really idiotic statement. It is assumed that the vehicle is in PARK and the vehicle is being dragged onto a flat bed. There are shows out there that portray real life. "Repomen-Stealing for a living" and others. The vehicle can be taken in less than 30 seconds with no "drag marks." Any tow truck with a wheel lift can snatch the vehicle. Because locksmith that examine these reported stolen vehicles for the insurance company usually have no mechanical knowledge about transmission linkage under the car, it may be stated that at the time of the examination, the vehicle was locked in PARK. That is only the shifter position and has nothing to do with what gear the transmission is actually in. I have even heard these guys say "no signs of "forced entry" and I gave you just a couple come backs to that. They have even had the gall to say "There were no signs of towing before the examination." O.K., how did the bvehicle get from the recovery site to the police impound? How did the vehicle get from the impound to the examination site? It was towed!!!!!

Chances are that you may get your claim denied because it needs what the uninformed experts consider to be a "proper key."
Now, one would think the vehicle would need to be recovered in order to be examined by the :forensic" locksmith that works independently for the insurance company. In a majority of these instances when recovered and examined, the forensic expert will generate a report implicating the insured by inuendo. The report will describe the design of the immobilizer (transponder and the theory of how the factory states it works. Most of these "forensic" locksmiths look at these cars not as athief, but as a locksmith and what it takes for them to make a key. The locksmith making and authorized key has all the time in the world. The thief does not, so as you see the perspective between reality and what really happens to a stolen car on the street are two different issues.
What is real scary is that lately, I have been seeing reports on these vehicles generated by these so-called professionals implicating the insured with the crime by assumption and innuendo. I have seen reports (I have some) on vehicle theft claims that were denied that were either never examined or worse yet never recovered. The expert will write in the report based on what he calls "assumed fact" that the vehicle could not be stolen. There is no assumption in forensics. It either happened or it didn't. In order to reach a conclusion based on the scientific method, all known hypothoses have to be considered. I have found that only certain hypothoses are considered in order to favor their insurance client.

Let's say you lock your keys in the car. You call a locksmith to open the car. He can;'t do any damage to enter the vehicle. If he does you will sue him. Now, he may put on a different hat the next day working as a "forensic" expert for the insurance company and state "He observed no signs of forced entry." Isn't this scenario interesting.
It is also very common for these expperts to actually destroy evidence when examine these vehicles.

Now, I might seem harsh here about the forensic examiners that examine reported stolen vehicles for insurance companies, and there are a few good ones, but the bad outweigh the good. Most are in it for the buck and don't care about what he may do to the innocent insured's life.

Look, I will agree with any expert in my field if he has taken into account all known possibilities. I am not talking "off the wall stuff", just things that can happen in real life.
I do not codone insurance fraud. If it can be proven that the insured was involved, then the insured should go to jail. I never know all the details to the case, bnor can I testify to them. I only deal in the last operation of the vehicle. Unlike a majority of the "forensic" experts out there, I am not a locksmith, although I have made many keys and serviced locks. My background was in the actual direct repair of more than 10,000 theft recoveries. I, as well as the people I have trained in this field look at these vehicles as a thief would.

The insurance company will get a recorded statement from you as to the facts surrounding the theft. After they do their investigation, they will determine if they will pay the claim.
During the investigation, they may ask you for phone records, tax statements etc. You have to copoperate or they can deny. Anything they want, you need to give them.
Yopu cannot lie or ommit anything or that will give them reason to deny.

If you left your keys in your car, tell them so. Many insurance companies do not have a stupidity clause. It depends on what yopur policy states. BE HONEST!
If you are not, it will come back and bite you. If you did have something to do with the theft, I hope you did not file a false police report because that iis a felony in many jurisdictions.
Last Saturday on this forum, a guy gave me a story his friends stole the car for a practical joke and crashed it. The insurance company would not let him recind the claim. He then admitted he had lied to me and that the vehickle was not stolen and he was the ione who crashed the car. It sounds like he is in big trouble.

If the insurance company denies your claim and you had nothing to do with the theft, and it is denied on the "forensic" locksmith report on your vehicle, you need to contact an attorney.
Depending on where you are located, I may be able to refer you to an attorney that specializes in these types of cases.

Then you or the attorney would contact me. My website is http://www.autotheftexpert.com

Good luck,

Rob

As a follow up I wanted to expound a little further about the glass breakage, drag marks etc. As stated, these questions with many others are right out of the insurance fraud indicator play book. Other questions are like: Vehicle surgically stripped, Vehicle has no missing parts, Vehicle has immobilizer, Insured knows more about insurance practices than average person, Has had previous theft, has lien on vehicle, has gap insurance, has a lease, over on mileage, owes on a credit card, has new job, in a hurry to settle claim, no interest in settling claim, had a for sale sign in vehicle and the list goes on and on. Some issues are contradictory, but being so general these indicators fit everyone.

There are many assumptions here. The statements assume that in order to force enter the vehicle, the glass must be broken. As the little analogy I gave you about the locksmith, locksmiths don't break glass to enter a locked vehicle. Why would a thief? This is not to say I haven't changed my share of broken glass, it is just meant to illustrate the reason the glass is not broken.
Commonly, it is assumed the vehicle is stolen for all its parts. It totally depends on that specific thief. He may only need targeted parts. He may need no parts at all to use the vehicle in a robbery or a burglary. Thieves are commonly generalized by the experts, the insurance company and even law enforcement. I found in close to 20 years repairing theft recoveries, every theft is intrinsic. If the expert states that vehicles are only stolen for all their parts, realize he is talking like a uniformed idiot. There are experts out there that will tell you if all parts were not removed before burning the vehicle, the claim is fraud and burning the parts is like burning money.
We repaired a new Buick at the time missing only the rear bumper. The after market stereo system and after market wheels were still there. Only the rear bumper was missing! Why? One could not be found used. We ended up replacing every new part to the bumper assembly.

Locksmiths are used because they service locks and make keys. To enhance their business, they use the title "Forensic" even though they rarely use the scientific method to eliminate other programmed keys, new tool marks in the lock consistent with a newly cut key.
These theft examinations can take many hours done right, but it is easier for the insurance expert to spend 10 minutes to an hour examining the vehicle. Many have a template report that they just change the personal information.
Theft denials are a very serious long ordeal that can have disastrous affects to the innocent insured.
If you’re not accustomed to it, insurance defense attorneys can be vicious and will do anything to protect their client insurance company at any cost. That's how they make their money. They will take every word you say and turn it around.
When I represent a party, no matter who they are I will do my best as well. If working for an insurance company, I don't state anything in a report I can't prove. When opposing the insurance expert, I expect that he based everything on fact and not assumption.
Let’s say your Subaru is recovered totally burned. The insurance company sends out the forensic expert to examine the vehicle and report on it.
Let's say that the conclusion states" “This vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type and proper transponder value."
This statement is totally fabricated and assumptive and there is no possible way the expert can prove it!
We look at the issue of insurance fraud, but let's go one step further and look for other areas of fraud like possibly the expert report!
As I stated, there are a few in this field that really want to get it right, but there are far more just in the field to make a quick buck and to boost their ego.

As for preventing theft again, you can't unless you put it in a brick building with no garage door with about 4 pitbulls that won't take meat from anyone.

Rob