by brandyjackson » Thu Jan 22, 2009 04:49 pm
my car was stolen from an transmission shop and the company at first said that they were not held liable for my car. I got me a lawyer and he got the ball on the road. I havn't had a car since late August and it is now late January and i still don't have a car. I have two infant children, i have had to travel with them by bus in the cold to take them to daycare, then catch the bus to work, and the same thing after my day at work is done. The insurance company seems to feel that they dont have to pay me for the inconveinence of not having a car due to lack of carelessnes on their part. should they have to pay me?
Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:44 pm Post Subject:
You don't mention if they are accepting liability for the stolen vehicle. Are they? If they are, then they should also consider paying you Loss of Use.
If you are paying an attorney to handle this for you, he/she should be addressing this issue as well.
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 am Post Subject:
If it was stolen from the shop they would almost have to be liable wouldn't they? I always thought these places had to carry insurance in case of theft, fire or anything else that may happen while they have a vehicle there. Any truth to that T?
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:51 am Post Subject:
The shop owes _reasonable_ care. If they did this, then they would not be liable (there are always grey areas). They may need to carry insurance but this is to protect them... having insurance does not make you liable for something.
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 02:25 pm Post Subject:
Brandy do you not have comprehensive coverage on your own policy? This could've been handled quickly filing it with them, then they can subrogate the tranny shop..what state are you in and what is their (tranny shops) explaination how or why it was stolen? was it in a fenced lot? did it run (it was in the shop after all) and I assume it has not as yet been recovered?
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 02:48 pm Post Subject:
i am in ohio. when i took it in, the owner assured me that the car was in a secure place and that if anything had happened to my car that it would be covered. the trans had been out of the car.the doors had to have unlocked because the windows weren't broken,they had to have pushed the car or hooked the car up to a truck to move it. i hired a lawyer to recover damages for the car and the tires that was stolen off the car and when i asked him about recovering pay for the time that i have been without the car he said that he would have to open another case. i was thinking that since there is still a case pending that he should be able to attach the claim to the case instead of opening a new case with different lawyer fees.
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 07:09 pm Post Subject:
If it was stolen from the shop they would almost have to be liable wouldn't they? I always thought these places had to carry insurance in case of theft, fire or anything else that may happen while they have a vehicle there. Any truth to that T?
Bailment laws exist for determining who is liable when entrusted with anothers property and depending upon the purpose that one is holding another' property.
As a service business owner, I am required to carry garage keepers insurance. I can not be held liable for loss and theft of personal items left in a vehicle is the vehicle owner is aware of signage posted in the business or is asked to remove personal belongings before dropping off a vehicle.
If I take reasonable care and custody to guard your vehicle outside with surveilence cameras and adequate lighting in a locked fenced in area or your vehicle is inside the building behind a locked door and someone gains unlawful entry and steals your vehicle, I am not liable. If it can be proven that I as the shop owner was negligent in taking reasonable means to protect your vehicle, then one may have a case.
For example, if I agreed to keep your vehicle inside at night through duration and completion of repairs and I decided to park it outside locked in front of my building in a private lot, and some one breaks in and steals the car or the radio,etc, then I would could certainly be liable. My policy covers only for the complete loss or theft of the vehicle if stolen due to my negligence.
Again, for example, if your car is destroyed in a fire at my business due accident beyond control of myself or my employees, then the vehicle's comprehensive coverage would only pay for the loss. If I am negligent (some welding sparks ignited a cars interior and set it ablaze along with other) then I am liable. If highwinds caused a power surge that set my circuit box on fire leading to the destruction of all the contents, the cars in the shop would not be covered by my policy but under your comprehensive coverage.
Bailment is the process of placing personal property or goods in the temporary custody or control of another. The custodian or holder of the property, who is responsible for the safe keeping and return of the property, is know as the bailee. The person who delivers or transfers the property to the bailee is known as the bailor. For a bailment to be valid, the bailee must have actual physical control of the property with the intent to possess it. The bailee is generally not entitled to the use of the property while it is in his possession, and a bailor can demand to have the property returned to him at any time.
Bailee's Duty of Care
In all bailment situations, the bailee has a minimum duty of care to ensure the safety of the property. If the bailee breaches or fails to uphold that duty, he can be legally liable for damages. A bailee can also be held liable for conversion if he uses the property without the bailor's permission, or does not return the property to the bailor upon request. A higher standard of care is imposed upon a paid bailee, and there is a lower standard of care imposed upon a bailee in a gratuitous bailment. With a bailment agreement or contract, the parties can agree to hold the bailee free from liability.
The bailee's standard of care is determined based upon the purpose of the bailment, and whether it is for the benefit of the bailee alone, the bailor alone, or for the benefit of both parties. If the bailment is for the benefit of the bailee alone, then the bailee owes a duty of extraordinary care. If the bailment is for the benefit of both the bailee and the bailor, then the bailee owes a duty of reasonable or ordinary care. Reasonable care is care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the same or similar circumstances. If the bailment is a gratuitous bailment and is for the benefit of only the bailor, then the bailee owes only a duty of slight care.
Damages
A bailor is entitled to recover damages for lost or damaged property if he can show that the bailee failed to exercise the required degree of care and proximately caused damage or loss of the property. If the bailee exercised the required degree of care required, then the bailor will not be entitled to damages. With a gratuitous bailment, the bailee will not be liable for damage to the property unless he was grossly negligent.
More information can be found at contracts lawyers.com
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 08:51 pm Post Subject:
Could not have said it better then Mike did.
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:42 pm Post Subject:
I agree great job mike...
when i asked him about recovering pay for the time that i have been without the car he said that he would have to open another case.
I don't have a bs flag big enough for that statement made by your lawyer...i was thinking that since there is still a case pending that he should be able to attach the claim to the case instead of opening a new case
absolutely it should and couldwith different lawyer fees.
You've answered your own question there honey...man that ticks me off...You didn't however answer my question about comprehensive coverage...also...he said these exact words...???
the owner assured me that the car was in a secure place and that if anything had happened to my car that it would be covered.
Didn't you have to sign anything when you dropped it off? Most repair auths...also have something in there about not being responsible...Mike did a great job explaining this to the laymen...sooooo you are saying your broken down vehicle was stolen then returned with the tires and wheels gone? is that what you are saying? What was damaged besides the tires gone? where was it found? where is it now? what is the year/make and model/? what was he going to charge you to replace the tranny? (I don't know ANYONE anymore that will 'work' on a tranny much usually replace)...why did you get an attorney did the shop owner not talk to you ? What brought that on...some of these questions I'm asking you are very important..especially re: your own insurance.
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:47 pm Post Subject:
Yes Thank You Mike for the detailed explanation. I guess this is a good reason to carry comprhensive coverage.
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:53 pm Post Subject:
It's a darn good reason!!! Ask my dad, (well no the shop actually did come to an agreement with him) he bought a decent shape 1950 ford (i don't remember what) to have restored had it at resto shop and was funneling money into it as it progressed...shop caught on fire lost the car...resto guy agreed to pay dad back what he had in the car (including his initial purchase price)...fire was caused by careless smoking..now THAT is negligence and they guy owed it...didn't go thru his carrier (if he even had insurance :roll: ) This 'could' have drug out for years however, but this guy did step up and do the right thing...course my dad could've been hard to get along with and demanded more than he had coming too, but he didn't...the guy was smart to settle...before any lawyers got ahold of it.
Add your comment