Check out some similar questions!

va_cutie · Feb 8, 2008, 05:10 AM

About six months ago I signed a personal contract with an old friend of mine to make payments on his car until I paid it off and it was mine.He kept the tags in his name, and the insurance.My fiancé received the car by my friend in which they also signed a paper stating that my faince was allowed to drive the car.The first 2 payments were made and then things happened and I lost my job and My fiancé wrecked the car.I contacted my old friend and told him about the accident and I plainly stated that I would fix the damages that were done to the car and I wanted to give it back because I no longer could pay for it and that I would pay for the months that the car was in my pocession.He agreed and has given me time but I still have not been able to get the car fixed and catch up on the payments at the same time.Now he has turned and said that he is going to charge me with grand theft auto,is that possible even though I did not steal his car and I have been updating him on everything that has been going on.:confused:

tickle · Feb 8, 2008, 05:59 AM

Document, document, document. Anything involving money and property should be followed with a paper trail. I don't necessarily agree with your arrangement with your friend of taking the car, making payments, him olding the ownership/title/insurance. It should have beena straight sale to protect your interests.

If your g/f is a witness to your transactions with him, then I don't think he can charge you with grand theft auto. Can you prove you had the car for a period such as repair receipts, etc.

George_1950 · Feb 8, 2008, 06:00 AM

Your formerly "old friend" is mad at you and wants results.

excon · Feb 8, 2008, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by va_cutie

said that he is going to charge me with grand theft auto,is that possible ?

Hello cutie:

No, it's not possible. He'll probably sue you, though.

excon

ScottGem · Feb 8, 2008, 07:27 AM

Assuming you have a copy of the contract or proof of it, he cannot charge you with theft. He can sue you for the value of the car when he turned it over to you. What I don't understand, is, if he had insurance on the car, why not just put a claim in. You would still be responsible for any costs not covered by the insurance.

George_1950 · Feb 8, 2008, 07:41 AM

Scott asks: "What I don't understand, is, if he had insurance on the car, why not just put a claim in"? The "insured" may understand that he would be defrauding his insurance carrier.

ScottGem · Feb 8, 2008, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by George_1950

Scott asks: "What I don't understand, is, if he had insurance on the car, why not just put a claim in"? The "insured" may understand that he would be defrauding his insurance carrier.

And why would it be fraud? He may have added the others to his policy or have coverage for unlisted drivers. Its possible the carrier may refuse to pay, but I don't see any fraud involved if they give the carrier the true facts.

George_1950 · Feb 8, 2008, 08:08 AM

The insurer will say that the car was sold to the driver six months before the wreck, therefore the seller/insured had no ownership/insurable interest in the vehicle, and failed to notify the insurer of these facts.

JudyKayTee · Feb 8, 2008, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by George_1950

Scott asks: "What I don't understand, is, if he had insurance on the car, why not just put a claim in"? The "insured" may understand that he would be defrauding his insurance carrier.

I don't understand the suggestion of fraud but depending on when all of this happened it may be WAY to late to file an insurance claim.

Also some policies have specific exclusions for people under a certain age - you have to pay additional if, for example, the driver is under 25. Happens all the time. Insureds don't tell their insurance company the truth and the insurance company digs in when/if the claim is made.

As far as auto theft - I think too much time has gone by.

ScottGem · Feb 8, 2008, 08:45 AM

I realize that it is probably too late to put a claim in, but I was more wondering why it wasn't put in at the time. I still don't see where there would be any fraud involved.

JudyKayTee · Feb 8, 2008, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by George_1950

The insurer will say that the car was sold to the driver six months before the wreck, therefore the seller/insured had no ownership/insurable interest in the vehicle, and failed to notify the insurer of these facts.

I disagree - no one knows what the insurer will say unless someone asks them. You are making a gigantic leap.

I don't understand the point you are making - as long as someone is paying auto insurance the car is insured. This won't be the first person who sold a car and continued to carry the insurance as part of the deal and it won't be the last. I'm also not sure this was a sale - that's up to the insurance company/Court. I've seen companies pay the claim under some very strange circumstances - and then surcharge for a number of years or refuse to write a policy and make sure every other company knows about it.

It doesn't matter where the ownership is - it matters if the car is insured (although it's late to be making a claim).

I agree with Scott - don't see the fraud here. I DO think all parties were pulling some sort of side pocket scam, though. Just can't zero in on exactly what it was.

ScottGem · Feb 8, 2008, 08:58 AM

Thanks Judy for clarifying my point, which was, the original owner agreed as part of the contract, to continue to pay the insurance. Therefore, any accident or damage should have been reported to the insurtance company and a claim made against the policy.

tickle · Feb 8, 2008, 03:51 PM

There may not be any fraud, but the insurance company may want to know why there wasn't an 'occasional' driver added to the policy(the owner of the car was paying the insurance premium apparently). Same as having a son or daughter on the policy as an occasional driver. Just a thought, and another is:

I can see one side though because here in Ontario if someone is driving your car and has an accident, then the OWNER of the car is responsible for the damages to their own car, and in the case of blame, responsible for the damage to the other car as well.

JudyKayTee · Feb 8, 2008, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by tickle

There may not be any fraud, but the insurance company may want to know why there wasnt an 'occasional' driver added to the policy(the owner of the car was paying the insurance premium apparently). Same as having a son or daughter on the policy as an occasional driver. Just a thought, and another is:

I can see one side though because here in Ontario if someone is driving your car and has an accident, then the OWNER of the car is responsible for the damages to their own car, and in the case of blame, responsible for the damage to the other car as well.

Okay, something I didn't know. No matter who was at fault the driver is responsible for the damage to his/her own car (or that person's insurance).

Does the insurance company then try to collect from the OTHER driver... or are you totally responsible for your own car no matter what - ?

tickle · Feb 8, 2008, 04:31 PM

JudyKayTee, here is a good for instance, and respectfully point out you may not have read my second paragraph correctly, or maybe you did. Our son was in an accident with his dad's Aurora, it was his fault and there was damage to the other car. Because the car was in his father's name, the responsibility for both cars was on his dad.

Just got home from a very long shift, so maybe I didn't need the second Clamato Cesar.

Mavbe I should not have answered this at all and did say it was 'just a thought', so was not responsible for any misrepresentation, right ! I do really use my brain at times, but not well after ten hours of work.

Fr_Chuck · Feb 8, 2008, 06:52 PM

There is an issue, if there was a written contract to "sell" the car, or was it considered a rent to own. I would doubt if the contract was really clear.
Car insurance policies are very specific, and most require that any full time driver be listed on the policy, also if the location of where the car is stored at night changes, the insurance company has to be notified of the new location, just a change in zip codes can also change the premuim, so if the incorrect preimuim has been charged, they can reduce payoff by a percentage.

But the one poster is correct, here are a few companies, if they got the contract for sale that the car became a "leased or rented" vechile, making it commercial, and that would void a personal policy.

A insurance company can come up with a lot of issue if they wnt to.

George_1950 · Feb 8, 2008, 08:10 PM

va_cutie writes: "About six months ago I signed a personal contract with an old friend of mine to make payments on his car until i payed it off and it was mine." This is a sales contract, not a 'rent to own'. When the car was sold, the seller no longer had an 'insurable interest' in the car. If the driver/buyer caused lots of damages, the insurer would deny coverage on this ground. The seller's attempt to make himself whole would have failed when the insurer discovered the true facts. That is why I described the seller's attempt to collect as deceitful (term of art) and fraudulent.