by Phil » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:53 am
My car was totaled out while paked in front of my house. It was at 4:00 am. No one was in the car. All were in bed asleep. The Police woke me up. I went outside where I was met by a neighbor who lives in the next block over. He said his car was stolen from in front of his house. He had left it running while he went in the house to get his billfold. He came out and saw two men get in the car and leave. He went back in the house, got his wife and pursued his car . The car crashed into mine 3 blocks away. He said he saw the crash and got out of his vehicle and chased them on foot but could not catch them. He then went back home and called the police.
His insurance has denied my claim saying they have no responsibility because the car was stolen
My position with his insurance company has been that since he left the keys in the car and the car running and then chased the thieves causing them to drive more recklessly than they otherwise might have that he should be responsible at least to some degree.
If he had not left the car running it wouldn't have been stolen. If he had not chased the car it wouldn't have hit mine and I wouldn't be without a vehicle. My car is old and had liability only.
I live in Missouri which is a Comparitive Liability State. In otherwords you assign degrees of responsibility to each party.
Does anyone know about similar cases like this where compensation has been paid. Does anyone know what the law says about this situation? I appriciate anything you might know or a site where I could research this particular topic.
Thanks, Phil
His insurance has denied my claim saying they have no responsibility because the car was stolen
My position with his insurance company has been that since he left the keys in the car and the car running and then chased the thieves causing them to drive more recklessly than they otherwise might have that he should be responsible at least to some degree.
If he had not left the car running it wouldn't have been stolen. If he had not chased the car it wouldn't have hit mine and I wouldn't be without a vehicle. My car is old and had liability only.
I live in Missouri which is a Comparitive Liability State. In otherwords you assign degrees of responsibility to each party.
Does anyone know about similar cases like this where compensation has been paid. Does anyone know what the law says about this situation? I appriciate anything you might know or a site where I could research this particular topic.
Thanks, Phil
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 02:22 am Post Subject:
I understand what your saying and don't entirely disagree. With that said, I think almost every carrier would deny the claim as chasing the party is a "reasonable" action. It's certainly done by the police all the time and if the police chase a vehicle and it causes property damage, they are not going to be held liable either. Also, I don't see leaving the keys in the car and it running very much negligence. It's a bone head move... but I don't see that its "unreasonable" to thing that many people are going to leave the car running if they forgot something inside and run in to get it.
But it's _extremely_ unusual that a vehicle left running for a minute or two in front of someones house is going to be stolen (but I did handle a claim where a person jumped into the front seat of a limo van while the driver was walking around to open the door. The person attempted to flee in the van).
Do I think you have a point? Yes. But I think short of filing suit, the carrier won't change their mind.
I also wonder if this person did not crash there own car and then just tell the police that it was stolen. accident occurring at 4am usually involve alcohol.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 07:41 am Post Subject:
From Missouri !! hmmm...Lori will be just delighted to reply to this post :wink: Phil, you can get the solution from the very mouth of a fellow Missourian. And she is a claim adjuster too. So, just hang tight :D
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:07 am Post Subject:
Certainly there were some degree of negligence from the other party. In fact, I'm tempted to believe what tcope has said, it may not be a case of car theft at all and the guy is only trying to mislead the police and avoid his responsibilities.
However, I too feel that when he had successfully persuaded the carrier that he wasn't responsible for the accident and the car was stolen, the carrier is likely to deny your claim even if your sue them. Moreover, when your car is old, the hassle to file a suit may not even worth it.
Have you contacted your insurer yet? what's their opinion? You may wish to contact them and know their version too.
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 01:23 pm Post Subject:
Sue your neighbor! What does it matter if his insurance will cover or not?
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 02:42 pm Post Subject:
Sue your neighbor! What does it matter if his insurance will cover or not?
The other person's carrier is providing their insured coverage, which means that they will provide a defense. Granted, the OP can file in small claims court but the carrier will still hire an attorney to prepare a defense. But I agree that this is probably the only way the OP could collect on this claim and I think it might be worth it. Walk out in front of your home at 4am and see how many people are walking by. What are the chances of someone walking by at 4am, within a short amount of time, and while your car is idling in the driveway. But, and here is the kicker... if they jump in the car and drive off, how long would it take the owner to realize his car has been stolen, get the keys to his other car, pull out and chase the thieves? According to the OP, they only got 1 block away. They'd have to be going about 2mph until the OP caught up to them. It just does not add up. I think a judge might see through all this but the burden of proof is still on the OP. The OP's best chance is that the carrier decides that the cost of a defense is not worth denying the claim. The best bet for placing liability on the owner of the vehicle _is_ that he left the car running in the driveway and I think it could be shown that it was left for an unreasonable amount of time.But as cameronhollyman mention (right on the mark), once the carrier made up it's mind to deny the claim they probably won't change it lacking suit being filed.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:19 pm Post Subject:
From Missouri !! hmmm...Lori will be just delighted to reply to this post Phil, you can get the solution from the very mouth of a fellow Missourian. And she is a claim adjuster too. So, just hang tight
:lol: :lol: Carol that's funny!I live in Missouri which is a Comparitive Liability State.
Yep, we are ''pure'' comparative neg...state....Does anyone know about similar cases like this where compensation has been paid. Does anyone know what the law says about this situation?
I've seen dozens of these claims...and never seen one paid, even after suits have been filed...unfortunately....I don't disagree with your reasoning, and I supposed it's worth a shot, if you can get an attorney to take it on a contingency basis....I also wonder if this person did not crash there own car and then just tell the police that it was stolen. accident occurring at 4am usually involve alcohol.
T is right we see this ALOT!Heres' the deal, and adjusters say this all the time, ''We insured stupidity" and we do (ie leaving vehicle running with keys..) I've got a personal story that I actually witnessed...Cold day, and AGENT for the company I worked for came to the CLAIMS OFFICE...left his vehicle running (big old lincoln), and yep, crack head stole it in broad daylight in the claims office parking lot! They found it several citys away, he'd hit all kinds of stuff, AND took his own picture with the agents polaroid and left them in the car! We had to deny all the claims for the vehicles he hit because no insurance company will cover the actions of a thief...pure and simply...If you have collision coverage your carrier will handle all of your damage, if they see any way at all to bring your neighbor in, they will (but I doubt it)...I know you're mad and don't blame you a bit...get a copy of the police report, see if it says anything about neighbor drinking...did they take finger prints of the steering wheel? Again, I'm sorry but I just don't think you stand a chance...
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:50 pm Post Subject:
Just a note to add to Lori's post. The policy will provide the insured coverage... it just won't pay the claim as the insured is not legally liable for the use of the vehicle if it's stolen. Unless there is a smoking gun showing the vehicle was not stolen, the insurance company usually rests it's decision on the insured filing a theft report.
Personally, I'm still not buying that the vehicle was stolen.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 05:50 am Post Subject:
Carol that's funny!
I knew you'll jump to it :wink: and glad that I was right :D
Again, I'm sorry but I just don't think you stand a chance...
I too think the same. Its sad that sometimes you have to pay for someone else's stupidity.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:03 pm Post Subject:
Personally, I'm still not buying that the vehicle was stolen.
Me either, but we both know it's hard to prove this...that's why I asked if the steering wheel was finger printed...and think the OP should get a copy of that report...many times the cops will (in their narrative) write they have their doubts...and about the owners ''condition''...Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 07:31 pm Post Subject:
Add your comment