Chrysler and Honda screw-ups

I know this is not true, at least in North Carolina. Years ago a friend's parked car was struck by another vehicle. The vehicle that did the damage was abandoned at the site of the collision. The driver was not found. The vehicle's owner reported the vehicle as stolen. The vehicle owner's insurance refused to pay, since the vehicle was stolen (or at least claimed to be stolen). Unfortunately my friend did not have collision insurance on the car, so her insurance would not pay for the car. To add insult to injury, her insurance also would not pay under the "uninsured motorist" portion of her auto policy because she could not prove that the person driving the car that did the damage did not have insurance.

Ed

Really? You obviously know little about tort law, if that is what you believe. The owner of the vehicle is always ultimately liable for losses caused by the owned vehicle. Been there, the insurance company for my Delaware based Corporation, paid over seven million for all the losses that occurred when one of my trucks was stolen from one of my locked facilities and involved in a police chase resulting in multiple collisions and injuries to several people.

mike

You friend is confused or not telling you the truth. "Uninsured" and "underinsured" converge applies only after litigation and it is determined the opposing side is indeed uninsured and or underinsured.

mike

Huh? I just said the uninsured motorist coverage would not pay. Neither would the insurance that covered the car that struck her parked car becasue they said the car was stolen.

Ed