In Texas, this would be covered by comprehesive coverage. Might want to look up case law in Mississippi for coverage here. They might come out ahead because it’s covered at ACV, which is higher than they bought it for! I had a customer that this happened to.
Even a moron from Mississippi should know there’s something wrong with such a transaction. They deserve to lose the vehicle as a penalty for gross stupidity. As for the notion comp coverage would compensate them for the ACV, forget it. “IF” they got anything it would be limited to the actual amount they paid. Most carriers would defend this to the hilt. You can’t profit from an illegal transaction.
The rightful owner would be covered at ACV but Physical Damage coverage usually excludes confiscation by a governmental or civil authority. The person that purchased stolen property is not protected under the standard auto policy. It is not collision or the listed perils for comprehensive. Buyer beware.
In Texas, you don’t have to be the registered owner to have insurable interest. They purchased the vehicle and established an insurance interest, and had the vehicle taken from them in which they have an insurable interest. It is covered by comp in Texas because government conf. isn’t excluded if the insured isn’t committing a felony. They didn’t commit a crime when they bought the vehicle, except for being stupid.
Dear Sorry Shirley,
As most all Liberals do, you attack personally showing your small-brain syndrome and the hate seething in your personna obviously brought on by years and years of enduring a terrible and unhappy personal life. I hope your lot in life improves.
Something here is not straight. First, this is not confiscation by the government, it is fraud by deception on the part of the bogus seller. You cannot have something confiscated that you never properly owned, you are surrendering the property back to the owner. Second, Comprehensive does not have perils named, it has exclusions named. Is fraud excluded? For that matter, I don’t believe government seizure is excluded on a PAP is it? We do not use the ISO form; I have never seen it in the policies I have reviewed.
Since policy contracts can very greatly from state to state and company to company it seems almost futile to debate coverage. It would be interesting to read the result of the inevitable claims.
Robert Wilson, while I’ll agree that Shirley is perhaps a bit coarse, her (or perhaps his) characterization did not apply to ALL Mississippians, as you suggest, just those who purchased the stolen vehicles for so low a price. If, on the other hand, you think that there are NO morons in Mississippi, then it is you who are ignorant.
In Texas, this would be covered by comprehesive coverage. Might want to look up case law in Mississippi for coverage here. They might come out ahead because it’s covered at ACV, which is higher than they bought it for! I had a customer that this happened to.
Greed, greed, greed and NO MORALS at all. And some wonder why America is spiraling down.
I know why.
Even a moron from Mississippi should know there’s something wrong with such a transaction. They deserve to lose the vehicle as a penalty for gross stupidity. As for the notion comp coverage would compensate them for the ACV, forget it. “IF” they got anything it would be limited to the actual amount they paid. Most carriers would defend this to the hilt. You can’t profit from an illegal transaction.
Shirley: You comments about people from Mississippi are offensive and ignorant.
The companies already have defended it and lost. Its in the case law. Covered at ACV. Just another reason rates are high.
The rightful owner would be covered at ACV but Physical Damage coverage usually excludes confiscation by a governmental or civil authority. The person that purchased stolen property is not protected under the standard auto policy. It is not collision or the listed perils for comprehensive. Buyer beware.
I am from Mississippi, and that’s why we call it the show me state.
In Texas, you don’t have to be the registered owner to have insurable interest. They purchased the vehicle and established an insurance interest, and had the vehicle taken from them in which they have an insurable interest. It is covered by comp in Texas because government conf. isn’t excluded if the insured isn’t committing a felony. They didn’t commit a crime when they bought the vehicle, except for being stupid.
Dear Sorry Shirley,
As most all Liberals do, you attack personally showing your small-brain syndrome and the hate seething in your personna obviously brought on by years and years of enduring a terrible and unhappy personal life. I hope your lot in life improves.
Something here is not straight. First, this is not confiscation by the government, it is fraud by deception on the part of the bogus seller. You cannot have something confiscated that you never properly owned, you are surrendering the property back to the owner. Second, Comprehensive does not have perils named, it has exclusions named. Is fraud excluded? For that matter, I don’t believe government seizure is excluded on a PAP is it? We do not use the ISO form; I have never seen it in the policies I have reviewed.
Since policy contracts can very greatly from state to state and company to company it seems almost futile to debate coverage. It would be interesting to read the result of the inevitable claims.
Robert Wilson, while I’ll agree that Shirley is perhaps a bit coarse, her (or perhaps his) characterization did not apply to ALL Mississippians, as you suggest, just those who purchased the stolen vehicles for so low a price. If, on the other hand, you think that there are NO morons in Mississippi, then it is you who are ignorant.