OT Life is definitely not fair!

[dpb]

On 12/20/2016 6:34 PM, [e-mail] wrote: ...

The liability insurance for damage to other than the insured vehicle is the issue here and it would, in my experience, be a rare case that that could be found to be that of the car's owner or actions of a thief.

I think you better check more carefully on what is/isn't actually covered; the OP's damages to his property would, I'm virtually certain, _not_ be covered by your insurance if it had been your car that had been stolen.

Think of it in this manner--you would not personally feel you have any culpability in the car hitting his fence would you? You weren't the driver, didn't cause the damage and (presuming) had left it secured properly (not w/ keys in, running in the driveway to warm up before heading out kind of thing), the fault/blame is all upon the thief.

When a vehicle is stolen, the injured party should seek damages against the thief through the thief's insurance or in court since it was the thief's negligence that caused the accident. As OP, says, "sometimes life just don't seem fair"...but it isn't all that fair to the car owner that without negligence he be punished, either...

[trader_4]

:

e car or you will switch insurance companies. A good swift kick in the pant s will motivate

You live in FL, right?

"Liability In the state of Florida, if your vehicle is stolen and involved in an auto accident, you are not liable. The key word here is ?stolen.? ? According to the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, you are liable if you gave expressed permission and the driver is involved in an accident. Yo ur liability is thus dependent on whether or not you gave expressed permiss ion, and theft implies that no expressed permission was given. "

Which is exactly what I said.

[trader_4]

That could change things, but the OP still has a long way to go. If indeed he can show that the owner gave the keys to the "thief", ie that it was not really stolen, then the owner and/or their insurance company is on the hook. Or if he can show that the owner negligently left the keys in the vehicle, with it running, etc. But good luck establishing that. For all we know the keys in it could have been a dummy key put in by the thief and who now has the keys? I guess if the cops gave them back to the owner, then the cops should have some kind of statement from the owner as to how they got into the hands of the thief.

I'd start with getting the full police report and focus on what it says about the keys. If it says the keys were the regular keys to the car, were identified by the owner, etc., then he may have a case. It's still possible the "thief" was someone who broke into the house, found the keys on the kitchen counter, etc. All depends on what the cops have. And how interested the cops may be in busting someone for filing a false police report, etc. If he can get the latter, then he probably has a decent case. I'd poke around with the cops some more, asking them if they believe it was really stolen, what they are pursuing, etc. If the cops even say they aren't treating it as a stolen car case, then he has at least that to go after the owner with. Could be an interesting thing to pursue in small claims too, if he has the time and inclination. If has half a case and files, the owner's insurance company, assuming there is one, may pay just to get rid of it.

[trader_4]

Which is why I said I'd get the full police report, talk to the cops handling it and find out what they know, what they think, etc. Assuming the keys in the car were the owner's keys, then you would think the cops would have some kind of statement from the owner as to how the car was stolen, etc. I would think the cops would be receptive to giving the damaged party the insurance info from the owner's car too.

[gfretwell]

Start at the beginning. The keys were in the car. That implies the user had tacit permission or that there was negligence on the part of the owner. Of course it may have actually been the owner or his kids and they just ran away. If the victim leans on the owner, the insurance will kick in

[dadiOH]

Note that...

1. The keys were in the car

1. The car wasn't reported stolen until hours after the accident.

I'd agree with you except for those two rather telling points.

[AL]

Some keys are hidden in or on cars (for lockout or convenience) in not so hard to find places. Some keys are taken in a burglary though if that was done in this case there should also have been a burglary report filed.

FWIW, don't keep any car keys in easy to find places in your house. If burglarized you may not only lose the family jewels but your car too.

FWIW 2, Don't keep your garage door opener in plain sight in your car. The burglar will break in the car and take the opener, look at your registration for your address, drive there, park in your garage (door down), and take all your stuff at his leisure. Happened to my neighbor. (I also made a convenient rip in my vehicle registration making my address illegible.)

[dpb]

...

I'd not actually recalled that was part of the OP's original posting, granted--mea culpa there.

It would certainly indicate a much higher likelihood of owner negligence it seems indeed altho again as another pointed out there are multiple ways in which that could have happened that don't _necessarily_ lead to owner negligence albeit it's more likely, certainly than if the car had been hot-wired it becomes fairly clear.

As per usual, too little info to be able to do anything definitive at all other than the liability follows the culpability and the insurance follows the liable party, not blindly after the vehicle as some have seemed to want to assert.

[Ed Pawlowski]

You are probably 100% correct, but. . . What is the conclusion from the police report?

[trader_4]

Very possibly, but not necessarily. We don't even know if the "keys" that were in it were the owner's keys or some dummy key that a thief might have stuck in. Assuming it's the owner's keys, the owner could say that the keys were in their house, someone illegally entered and took them. The problem is, how do you prove any of that? Which is why I said he should get the police report, talk to the police. If they aren't treating it as a stolen car that would be a good start. And presumably they should have some story from the owner as to how it was stolen.

Maybe. If he sues the owner in small claims, then I'd say there is a good chance the insurance company will settle it just to be rid of it. It's not much money. IF there is a thief, that's the person really responsible, but good luck collecting there.

[trader_4]

The police report and investigating cop should have answers to a lot of it. Like what story the owner told about how the car was stolen.

[gfretwell]

I would just start by making a claim to the other guy's insurance and make him prove he was not liable.

[trader_4]

He doesn't have to prove he's not liable, unless you take him to court. All he and his insurance company have to do is say no.

[Ed Pawlowski]

You can claim anything, but unless you can prove it, you get nothing. He does not have to prove he is not liable.

[gfretwell]

I guess I am not as quick to roll over as you guys. Carry on.