CAR THEFT WITHOUT BREAKING AND ENTERING. HOW TO OBTAIN THE INSURANCE INDEMNITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TRACE OF BREAK-INS ?
Your vehicle was stolen and then found a few weeks later by the police without any trace of a break-in but crashed. Situation that becomes almost banal when it comes to car theft.
The insurer has been slow to compensate you, precisely waiting for your vehicle to be found. The report filed by the insurer’s expert mentions the absence of traces of break-in and your insurer notifies you of the refusal of compensation by opposing a condition of guarantee namely : absence of traces of mechanical or electronic break-in. What to do ?
Know that today there are legal means (arguments) to challenge this position. Courts are increasingly supportive of policyholders facing this type of unjustified refusal by insurers.
The insurer must compensate you even in the absence of traces of infringement in view of the latest jurisprudence of the courts
In accordance with consumer law, unfair clauses are clauses that create a significant imbalance of rights between the trader and the consumer. These clauses can be declared null and void by case law, i.e., more concretely, inapplicable to the insured.
If your insurance contract contains a clause that can be called abusive, in the event of a lawsuit, the magistrate may cancel it, that is, declare it unenforceable.
Some courts have accepted that theft is a legal fact, the evidence of which is free. In support of this principle, courts are increasingly beginning to rule that the insurer cannot impose specific methods of proof (such as, for example, the demonstration of mechanical or electronic burglary) to refuse insurance coverage (Paris Court of Appeal, June 13, 2017).
Such a clause limits the freedom of proof of the insured (fundamental principle defended by the Court of Cassation) and, therefore, must be deemed abusive, i.e., more concretely, unwritten / inapplicable to the insured.
In other words, if the insurance policy guarantees the theft, the insurer can not impose on the insured additional evidence (break-in) to refuse to guarantee, as soon as the theft is proven and no fraud of the insured is demonstrated by the insurer’s expert.
In summary, a clause that requires the traces of break-in on the stolen car can be canceled by the judge in the event of a dispute.
So do not bow to the whims of your insurer who refuses you compensation and try to defend yourself by arguing legally.
Courts are increasingly supportive of policyholders who are victims of vehicle theft without evidence of a break-in
In the event of a dispute with the insurer, the judges believe that insurers do not take into account in their insurance policies the technical reality of modern methods used by thieves.
Thus, the courts increasingly consider that modern vehicle theft techniques render “burglary-free theft” clauses obsolete, so that clauses that establish an obligation for the insured to provide proof of a break-in are abusive and therefore void/unenforceable.
The judges recognized through some important decisions that insurers know or must know that today a vehicle can technically be stolen “remotely”, by hacking the electronic codes of the keys, and therefore all logically without leaving the slightest trace of break-in.
The experts of the insurance companies know this very well but, mandated (and therefore paid for) by the companies themselves, they will try to “bring” the circumstances of the theft to the non-coverage clause without obviously worrying about the interest of the insured.
You have an interest in having your own expert represent you at this expert to counter the conclusions of the company’s expert.
What defense against the refusal of compensation ?
The courts use the index beam technique to deduce that the insured has not made false statements regarding the theft of his vehicle and must obtain compensation despite the absence of evidence of burglary.
You must therefore argue, for example, that you were no longer in possession of the keys to the vehicle at the time the police found it (a fairly common situation) because you returned them to the insurer’s expert or to the insurer itself immediately after the theft.
Thus, for example, it was ruled by the courts that the insured demonstrates the reality of the loss when his vehicle was discovered abandoned on the public road and not at the place where it was declared parked. The judges ordered the insurer to guarantee the claim even in the absence of evidence of a break-in.
The movement of the vehicle during the night, while the insured remained in possession of the keys, also corroborates the establishment of the proof of the claim, which is logical, and it demonstrates that the insured did not make false statements. Even in the absence of signs of a break-in, the insurer must guarantee the loss.
If the movement of the vehicle (and thus the theft) was found by the policy while the insurer’s expert was in possession of the keys of the vehicle, logically excludes that the insured himself orchestrated the claim (since he had returned the keys to the insurer’s expert). In this case, even in the absence of evidence of a break-in, the insurer must guarantee the theft.
On a practical level, if you are a victim of such a denial of insurance when everything suggests that the car was stolen remotely by hacking the keys, talk to an insurance lawyer so that the latter will notify your insurer of the legal arguments in support.
Practice shows that unfortunately, in the face of abuse by insurers in terms of vehicle theft, the only effective means remains the use of the lawyer, and this, as quickly as possible.
Based on the latest jurisprudence of the courts, your claim against the insurer has a very good chance of success.