I have read this 3 times and still cannot figure out what it says. If someone is trying to rewrite the meaning of liability, good luck. I think this was posted as a joke and has no basis of fact.
“To provide that an insurer cannot deny a claim based on the fact that the insured motor vehicle is stolen if a valid police report of the theft of vehicle has not been filed.”
Essentially, a valid vehicle theft report must be filed with the police before an insurer can deny a (third party) claim involving that vehicle because it was a stolen vehicle at the time of loss.
I agree that auto insurer’s should provide a defense to the named insured, relatives as defined and any other person driving with permission. If the thief somehow qualifies to any of the above definitions, then the insurer should afford coverage as set forth by the policy.
So some yahoo can steal my car and wreck it into someone or something else and I would still be liable? I don’t think so!!
I read that as the company CAN deny liability only if a police report has been filed stating the vehicle was in fact stolen.
I have read this 3 times and still cannot figure out what it says. If someone is trying to rewrite the meaning of liability, good luck. I think this was posted as a joke and has no basis of fact.
Here’s the bill summary:
“To provide that an insurer cannot deny a claim based on the fact that the insured motor vehicle is stolen if a valid police report of the theft of vehicle has not been filed.”
Essentially, a valid vehicle theft report must be filed with the police before an insurer can deny a (third party) claim involving that vehicle because it was a stolen vehicle at the time of loss.
I agree that auto insurer’s should provide a defense to the named insured, relatives as defined and any other person driving with permission. If the thief somehow qualifies to any of the above definitions, then the insurer should afford coverage as set forth by the policy.