by saabie » Tue Sep 13, 2011 09:48 pm
my mom loaned her car to someone for 3 days. After 60 days, she repeatedly asked for the car back; she sent a registered 5 day demand for the car that was returned unclaimed. When she was finally able to get the car back, the interior was trashed and the car was mechanically totaled--the mechanic reported it as undrivable...Would this be considered for a comprehensive claim. Thanks!
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:17 pm Post Subject: loaned vehicle totaled
it depends on your insurance policy; if the car is totaled mechanically, and you have proof of your attempt to recind your largess, you may have a claim. best bet is to contact your insurance company.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 02:18 am Post Subject:
Coverage will depend on the cause of the damage. Was it vandalized? By whom?
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 02:29 am Post Subject:
according to the legal definition of vandalisim..yes, but it was by a person known to her, so pressing charges is not an option.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 03:42 am Post Subject:
I replied in another thread not seeing the the OP started more then one. One issue is if the insurance company considers the person a permissive user. If so, they are an insured. Can an insured cause damage to the vehicle and have it covered?
As mentioned in this thread, its really up to the carrier.
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 06:34 am Post Subject:
I may not be correct, but I really don't think that intentional damage to any property is covered by the insurers.
In this case the person who borrowed the car was, as tcope says, an insured. Thus, if the insured damaged the interior of the car, the claim would be most probably turned down. Comprehensive coverage won't work here.
Only an angel of an insurer would cover that ( so do I think)
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:57 pm Post Subject:
I'm leaning both ways on this (more toward no coverage as most carriers 1) don't want to pay if it looks like they may not need to and 2) because it was the insured's actions that lead the the damage).
This could be considered a theft by conversion. If it's considered a theft then the damage is either a result of theft of a result of vandalism. If a theft by conversion then the person is no longer an insured. The big problem with this is that no police report was filed in the meantime. HUGE mistake on the owners part (and ranks up there with loaning the car out to someone). As such, who is to say that the info from the insured is even true?
But I think there is about a 95% chance the claim would be denied as there is confirmation that the vehicle was given freely and there was no police report for theft and (or therefore) no good indication that this turned into a theft situation.
OP.. a letter to the person telling them to return the car was really no the best move. As I've mentioned, a police report for the theft of the car would have been a _much_ smarter move. It's what most people would have done. As such, this is really going to look like the car was loaned to someone and returned damaged. This is not what insurance is for. It's more of a "life lesson"... i.e. don't loan your car out to shady people.
Add your comment