Auto Theft-The Story Riddled By Assumption Portrayed as Fact
Assumption#1 Vehicle can't be stolen because equipped from the factory with a sophisticated anti-theft system.
Assumption#2 If vehicle is stolen, claim will be paid quickly without question by the insured.
Assumption#3 Carrier assumes that the reported stolen vehicle was driven from the theft site with the insured's key.
Assumption#4 Carrier assumes that because the theft recovered vehicle is not missing valuable components predetermining as to what a thief would remove from the vehicle, vehicle not stolen.
Assumption#5 Carrier assumes that if the vehicle is recovered burned, insured had to have some sort of involvement in the fire.
Assumption#6 Carrier assumes that when forensics is assigned to examine the vehicle to determine as to how the vehicle was last driven, a standardized scientific protocol was applied to reach conclusions on the vehicle.
Assumption#7 Carrier assumes that insured was involved with the theft claim after reviewing the forensic report and initiates an investigation for financial motive on the part of the insured.
Assumption#8 After claim is investigated and denied, it is common thinking for the insured to retain an attorney to defend their innocence. Once such attorney has been supplied with claim denial letter, attorney assumes because forensics was performed to determine as to how the vehicle was last driven, the forensic report serves as a smoking gun, indicating insured's involvement with the theft.
Assumption#9 In court case matters surrounding auto theft matters, it is assumed that the purported forensic expert for the carrier can support his conclusions based on a scientifically verifiable methodology with the examination of the physical evidence.
Assumption#10 It is assumed in court that the expert has only given conclusions on physical evidence he has retained and examined.
Assumption#11 It is assumed by the court, because the expert has qualified to render conclusions in previous court appearances and that he touts the "forensic" title of locksmith, he is capable of testifying as to how vehicles are stolen.
Assumption#12 It is assumed that because the forensic locksmith's conclusions are beyond question as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven, that unless there are what appear to be valid legal arguments favoring the plaintiff or criminal defendant's favor, that the accused is guilty of being a party to the theft of the vehicle.
Assumption#13 In court, it is assumed the forensic locksmith will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the oath he swears to.
I have not even addressed the assumptions used as fact as a narrative as to what a specific thief would have to take from the vehicle to be considered a stolen vehicle. If not missing components and recovered burned, in the carrierís opinion, the vehicle does not have the signature of theft. Although they have no clue as to if the vehicle was stolen to be used in a crime and burned to conceal evidence. Product defects are not considered which could cause a fire that did not show up on a recall. Vehicles are burned for fun by gang members. 99% of the time, the carrier assumes the insured falsified the theft and had something to do with the fire.
The assumption used as fact that because the insured knows gap coverage allows them to walk away from all financial obligations of the vehicle. The truth of the matter, most insureds are forced to have gap insurance because they are upside down in their payments to purchase that vehicle and they donít even know what this is built into their financing.
Of course, there are many more assumptions that can be derived as they fit a specific claim or case; however the game is rigged against the insured because of ignorance based on lack of knowledge on auto theft and forensics. Looking at the total picture here lets look at who actually understands the concept of auto theft and how forensics plays a role.
Does the insurance SIU (Special Investigation Unit) investigator understand the purported forensics that determines as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven? No! Their position is just to assign the claim for a forensic examination of the vehicle ignition and anti theft system. Their job is just to move on the conclusions authorizing a full blown investigation of motive on the part of the insured. The scientific method of seeing where the facts take the investigator is now lost to the creative method. The creative method of investigation is to draw the conclusion from the forensic reporting that the insured is involved with the theft (predetermined opinion after review of the report) and supply facts that will match the determination that the insured is guilty.
Do either the defense, plaintiff, criminal defense or prosecutors understand the forensics that determines as to how a reported stolen vehicle was last driven? No, and that is not their job. Their job is to rely on their experts and defend or prosecute the case accordingly.
Do the judges know anything about auto theft and forensics? They have no clue and are reliant totally on the lawyers arguing the a expert qualification Vior Dire direct or cross examination of the expert's training, background, experience as a locksmith allowing him to cross testify on auto theft of which he has no experience.
What about the juries? The juries are only commonly aware of methods of theft seen on TV which have not been employed for 30 years, and because the expert qualified and testifying as the trier of fact under the veil of a forensic title, it is assumed his conclusion are based of fact determined by examination of the physical evidence.
In summary, this has nothing to do with if I am right or wrong about the forensic methodology that needs to be employed when examining reported stolen vehicles as to how they were last driven. Look what we are dealing with-ignorance on all parties involved, in which the forensic locksmith can offer fact testimony on physical evidence he either destroyed (carrier is their client, not the insured, being alone at the vehicle and being compensated for their reporting), altered, manufactured, or non-existent, in which speculation serves as fact.
In many cases, even civil, the insured's life relies totally on the luck of the draw and how much money they have to defend the claim/case.
At minimum, the insured is guilty of parking their vehicle where it was available for theft. I am not espousing the guilt or innocence of any insured. That is not my position, but whatever happened to the point that the expert is required to testify on only the facts as they relate to physical evidence?
We are also dealing with purported forensics here, which requires the elimination of all known hypotheses that can either support an opinion of exacting, or inconclusive. Currently, and for the last 15 years, the forensic locksmith's conclusion is that the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. This is a very general one size fits all conclusion that anyone capable of inserting a key into the ignition and rotating it can make. The forensics unless double talk is used is a deliberate misrepresentation of material fact as it relates to forensic locksmithing. Which key of the proper type was last used? The insured's key? (If so, which one?) Since keys are double sided and can be inserted either way, which side of that specific key was last used? Was a thief's key used, being as keys are extremely easy to obtain from code just by supplying the VIN of the vehicle to a dealer? Was a key of the correct electronic value required? Was the anti theft system bypassed for an after market remote start or for theft? Was the computer or anti theft module swapped out before the theft? Was a key of the proper type even used to move the vehicle from the theft site?