Vehicle stolen from repairers, who's liable?

dacouch

dzug1 wrote: »

Well one possibility is (and it's happened to me, though not with a car):

the garage is liable
they claim from their insurance company
their insurance company say you must claim on your insurance as they don't cover risks that are already separately insured.

That is not neccessarily correct, technically the garage are normally only liable for the losses if they are legally liable. This would generally be if they could "Reasonably" have avoided the claim. If their security and processes were reasonable to prevent thefts then it likely they will not be liable.

If they have a disclaimer that is made clear to you it can also influence the issue.

However some Motortrade Insurers will pay these claims (When they are not legally liable) out as a favour to the garage to keep good customer relations

sassy_one

The garages claim sounds a little off to me and I smell a rat!

May I ask what car it is and year?

[Deleted User]

I'd say the body shop are dodgy and have took your car to another lock up to strip down for parts.

Just my view.

sassy_one

Deleted_User wrote: »

I'd say the body shop are dodgy and have took your car to another lock up to strip down for parts.

Just my view.

I'd like to know the make and year as that will have a big impact on me thinking the garage has done this rather than it being a real claim by them.

I would guess the car is less than 5 years old and isn't a people carrier :rotfl:

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Deleted_User wrote: »

I'd say the body shop are dodgy and have took your car to another lock up to strip down for parts.

Just my view.

i was thinking same but held back on that.

could we be hearing about a new type of millenium car theft?

millenium burglaries occur because newer vehicles are hard to hotwire so hence break into house pinch the key that starts the car.

i'd like to know what car it was OP if its relativly new or worth allot of money then i'd turn my eye to the garage also

sassy_one

If you can, do some research at existing customers of the garage, see if there have been any other 'loses' of this kind!

Internet search

Local's

dacouch

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

i was thinking same but held back on that.

could we be hearing about a new type of millenium car theft?

millenium burglaries occur because newer vehicles are hard to hotwire so hence break into house pinch the key that starts the car.

i'd like to know what car it was OP if its relativly new or worth allot of money then i'd turn my eye to the garage also

Millenium thefts and distraction thefts have been a problem for garages for a long time (A long time before they affected the general public). Because of this most reasonable sized motortraders with premises have had to either have a decent safe or a secure key box (With the key removed from the premises) for the vehicles to be covered. Some Insurers accept a senior member of staff taking them home.

redux

There seems to be a bit of guesswork in the replies.

The motor trader or repairer's liability insurance is intended to protect them against their negligence.

Theft of a locked car when reasonable steps have been taken to protect it doesn't look like negligence to me.

Compare this hypothetically to if your car is stolen while you are visiting a friend's house; you don't get to claim against either their home or motor insurance.

In your position, I'd be starting a dispute with my own insurers. Basically, they should cover you and then if they think they have a claim against another party, they conduct it themselves, not abdicate first and leave you in the lurch.

I'm not basing this on guesswork. Premises I was renting were flooded. I spoke to my insurers about potential damage to my customer's property, and they pointed out that this wasn't negligence by me so it didn't apply as there could be no claim against me. Likewise there isn't any claim against the landlord, and the property had not been flooded in the previous 400 years. I told my customer this, as well as saying that anyway it had only been touched by half an inch depth for about three feet, and I separately made a claim under another policy for damage to some of my own property which was more affected. If in addition hypothetically the water company or some similar party had negligently set a sluice gate in the wrong position and arguably contributed to causing the flood, which was a rumour for a while, then perhaps the other insurers could eventually chance a claim against their insurers, but in any event one's own claim is referred to one's own insurers.

johnson293

redux wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of guesswork in the replies.

The motor trader or repairer's liability insurance is intended to protect them against their negligence.

Theft of a locked car when reasonable steps have been taken to protect it doesn't look like negligence to me.

Compare this hypothetically to if your car is stolen while you are visiting a friend's house; you don't get to claim against either their home or motor insurance.

In your position, I'd be starting a dispute with my own insurers. Basically, they should cover you and then if they think they have a claim against another party, they conduct it themselves, not abdicate first and leave you in the lurch.

I'm not basing this on guesswork. Premises I was renting were flooded. I spoke to my insurers about potential damage to my customer's property, and they pointed out that this wasn't negligence by me so it didn't apply as there could be no claim against me. Likewise there isn't any claim against the landlord, and the property had not been flooded in the previous 400 years. I told my customer this, as well as saying that anyway it had only been touched by half an inch depth for about three feet, and I separately made a claim under another policy for damage to some of my own property which was more affected. If in addition hypothetically the water company or some similar party had negligently set a sluice gate in the wrong position and arguably contributed to causing the flood, which was a rumour for a while, then perhaps the other insurers could eventually chance a claim against their insurers, but in any event one's own claim is referred to one's own insurers.

The difference in that scenario though, is that when I park my car outside my own house, or outside a friends house, or even in town - I understand the risks, and that is down to me.

Surely, if I leave my car with a garage, then I am leaving the responsibility for the care of the car with them - this counts for how they drive it, and where they park it during the day and overnight (if necessary).

If this was a high value vehicle (which we dont know it was yet, as OP hasn't said), why wasn't it parked inside the garage building, rather then being 'on show' in a compound?

If the garage regulalry deals with high value cars that can often be parked outside overnight, then they shoudl have had CCTV - and if not, why not?

vikingaero

I would imagine that the car was left unlocked which assisted the thief. Looking at the compound at one of the bodyshops I park near a lot of the cars are insecure - broken windows covered with PVC sheets whilst parts are ordered, damaged doors that don't lock etc. A lot of places habitually leave the cars unlocked - when I picked a care up from a service I paid and was told where the car was parked and that "the keys are in the sunvisor".