Automotive

Stolen Car - Insurance claim denied!

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 23rd, 2017 5:54 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Feb 10, 2016
7 posts
13 upvotes

Stolen Car - Insurance claim denied!

My father has a Kia and Mercedes, 3 months ago he put the cars on fire and theft only since he was not really driving them due to health complications. I have been excluded on the policy since the start, and I am aware of this. Since he stopped driving the cars, I have been borrowing service/dealer plates from work to make sure both cars get driven and washed once a week. 3 weeks ago my dads mercedes got stolen from his driveway. He called the police, made a report, called insurance, went through the paces. The insurance company called to question him, he told them the truth, the car was on the drive, he had not driven it for awhile, and that occassionally I drove it with dealer plates from work. The insurance company said they would need my details to question me.... nobody ever called. Fast forward to today, the insurance company called him and told him that the claim was denied because I was excluded on the policy and was not supposed to drive the car. My dad argued their logic, he told them he was aware that I was is excluded on the policy, and that is why anytime i drove it I brought dealer/service plates. And besides, who has driven the car in the past is completely irrelevant to the fact that the car was now stolen in his possession from his home. The insurance company said they would have to investigate further and that it could take months.

Is any body in the insurance world that can shed some light on this? Is the insurance company just trying to weasel their way out of not paying for the car?

Is there any recommended lawyers I can contact about this?
Last edited by User298424 on Mar 20th, 2017 11:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
204 replies
Deal Addict
May 4, 2014
2362 posts
1437 upvotes
Toronto, ON
You "borrowed dealer plates from work" to use on a car owned by your father, on which you were explicitly excluded from his insurance policy....... sounds perfectly legit........ :facepalm:
Last edited by er34er34 on Mar 20th, 2017 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jr. Member
Feb 1, 2017
166 posts
140 upvotes
You are right that you driving the car with dealer plates is completely irrelevant to the fact that the car was stolen from your father in his driveway. That's why I never would have told them about that to begin with. Insurance companies are the biggest frauds out there and will use any type of leverage they can to not cover you. Good luck to you.
Jr. Member
Feb 1, 2017
166 posts
140 upvotes
er34er34 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 11:46 pm
You "borrowed dealer plates from work" to use on a car owned by your father, on which you were explicitly excluded from his insurance policy....... sounds perfectly legit........ :facepalm:
That's besides the point here. Now, if he had to have gotten into an accident while driving the car with those plates on it that would have opened a can of worms.

But this claim has nothing to do with that. The car had theft insurance and was stolen from his fathers driveway. In what way should that not be covered? He is not making a collision claim or a comprehensive claim, as the car didn't have that coverage. He is making a theft claim, and the car DID have that coverage!!
Last edited by yselfandi on Mar 20th, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 24, 2005
5090 posts
724 upvotes
sounds like you tried to commit insurance fraud and got screwed.

when you put a car on liability only -- it doesnt mean you drive around with dealer plates to try and skirt the idea of paying for insurance

and then people on this forum wonder why insurance is so expensive.
Deal Addict
Jun 18, 2008
4269 posts
2465 upvotes
Montreal
User298424 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 11:41 pm
My father has a Kia and Mercedes, 3 months ago he put the cars on fire and theft only since he was not really driving them due to health complications. I have been excluded on the policy since the start, and I am aware of this. Since he stopped driving the cars, I have been borrowing service/dealer plates from work to make sure both cars get driven and washed once a week. 3 weeks ago my dads mercedes got stolen from his driveway. He called the police, made a report, called insurance, went through the paces. The insurance company called to question him, he told them the truth, the car was on the drive, he had not driven it for awhile, and that occassionally I drove it with dealer plates from work. The insurance company said they would need my details to question me.... nobody ever called. Fast forward to today, the insurance company called him and told him that the claim was denied because I was excluded on the policy and was not supposed to drive the car. My dad argued their logic, he told them he was aware that I was is excluded on the policy, and that is why anytime i drove it I brought dealer/service plates. And besides, who has driven the car in the past is completely irrelevant to the fact that the car was now stolen in his possession from his home. The insurance company said they would have to investigate further and that it could take months.

Is any body in the insurance world that can shed some light on this? Is the insurance company just trying to weasel their way out of not paying for the car?

Is there any recommended lawyers I can contact about this?
How can you be excluded from the policy? All licensed drivers in the household must be disclosed to insurance.
[OP]
Newbie
Feb 10, 2016
7 posts
13 upvotes
Missing the point here, I could totally appreciate the insurance companies perspective if the car was stolen in my possession or i crashed it, but the car was stolen from my dads driveway, and who drove it in the past under what plates has nothing to do with the claim.
[OP]
Newbie
Feb 10, 2016
7 posts
13 upvotes
I was excluded on the policy 7 years ago because I had two accidents in a span of 3 months (one was my fault). I remember I had to sign paperwork stating that I acknowledged that i was excluded.
Deal Addict
Jun 18, 2008
4269 posts
2465 upvotes
Montreal
User298424 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 12:04 am
I was excluded on the policy 7 years ago because I had two accidents in a span of 3 months (one was my fault). I remember I had to sign paperwork stating that I acknowledged that i was excluded.
So basically insurance wanted you nowhere near the car, you acknowledged and signed off on it, but you still chose to find a way to drive the car around with plates that don't belong to you. Good luck trying to sell this.
Last edited by ottofly on Mar 21st, 2017 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
May 4, 2014
2362 posts
1437 upvotes
Toronto, ON
yselfandi wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 11:50 pm
That's besides the point here. Now, if he had to have gotten into an accident while driving the car with those plates on it that would have opened a can of worms.

But this claim has nothing to do with that. The car had theft insurance and was stolen from his fathers driveway. In what way should that not be covered?
It isn't besides the point.

1. The car is not supposed to be driven at all under "fire and theft" insurance. Driving it is grounds for insurance cancellation and voiding of the policy from that point in time.
2. OP being in the same household must be insured to drive the car. He stated he was explicitly excluded from the policy(presumably to save a few bucks).
3. Because "borrowing dealer plates from work" to drive a car owned by a family member is perfectly normal and not sketch, right? He wasn't doing this on a rare occasion either - he said it was done on a regular basis knowingly(he said "to make sure both cars get driven and washed once a week").
4. You could say that the theft could've happened regardless whether OP drove it or not, but at the same time, it's possible that OP driving it on a regular basis actually opened up opportunities for theft(left the car unlocked, left the keys in the car after driving it, etc...)

This is insurance fraud at its best, and why we're all paying the price.
Last edited by er34er34 on Mar 21st, 2017 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jul 5, 2011
930 posts
526 upvotes
Toronto
I may be wrong, but I suspect that admitting you drove the vehicle in any capacity would void the terms agreed in your policy, thus terminating coverage completely irregardless of what happened to the vehicle.

I imagine the insurance will say the moment you drove the vehicle knowing you were specifically excluded, his coverage ceased to exist.

And honestly I can't really blame them... if you knew you were excluded, you should not have driven the vehicle (even with dealer plates). Why not just wash it in the driveway?
2013 Wins - $1320 - Woohoo!
[OP]
Newbie
Feb 10, 2016
7 posts
13 upvotes
Well looks like I might be shit out of luck. I was honestly just trying to do my dad a favour. Sitting cars go bad, gas goes bad, it starts to rust and seize, battery goes dead, tires get flat spots, I just trying to help keep his cars in good running order, his mechanic told him to drive it a few times a month. I was not trying to do insurance fraud by only paying for liability. I have my own very nice car and my own insurance. I drove his car literally maybe 2-3 times a month.
Sr. Member
Jun 20, 2010
638 posts
239 upvotes
Your dad is partly at fault for telling his insurance "unnecessary" information that is not relevant to the theft. I guess you guys are even now. :D all the best to you.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 10, 2004
2939 posts
568 upvotes
Edmonton
It does seem a bit weird... I mean if you were driving it and it got stolen while you had it parked somewhere I could see the issues.

But it was stolen from the driveway of the house where it was insured (?)

Regardless of the potential problems of driving the vehicle under another dealers plates, still seems like it would be insured for theft from it's primary residence. But I'm no insurance agent, so I guess it would be time to get a lawyer and review why exactly they're denying it.

Top