Did he have comprehensive coverage at the time it was stolen? If he spent that much on the car, I’ll bet he did. Sounds to me like the car belongs to the insurance company at this time. It has been many years since I adjusted auto claims, but I thought that when you settle a total theft loss, you have the owner transfer the title to the carrier in exchange for the settlement.
Your right, if he did have comp coverage on it at the time it would belong to the insurance company. But…. back in 1995 a kid at the age of 18 did they go for full coverage or just liability?
You are correct about that – handling of total theft(loss) claims. However, in 1995 the 1969 camaro wasn’t worth $16,000. Actually, $16,000 is a pretty good deal for such a car today. No wonder the eBay person bought it. Then again… it probably needed some of that $10,000 worth of work.
Back in 1995 that would have been a 26 year old camaro and a newly established “antique” vehicle. It would be today’s equlivent of purchasing an 85 IROC-Z Camaro for your high school student to drive around. You could get one for as low as $3k or as much as $10k depending on condition/miles and such.
He probably had a modest condition 69 camaro at 18 and was probably about $5,000 in value in 1995. It’s doubtful there was comp/coll on it. That’s just my opinion though. I never had a first generation camaro… so I may be a little off on what their values were 16 years ago.
It is also possible that the 69 camaro was a father/son project for him (him being the son). I mean… he talks about it like it was a family member.
I don’t know about the laws in Utah, but in Kalifornia (case law) if the buyer (unknowingly) of a vehicle doesn’t know it’s stolen and gets it fully insured he (Dockery) can make a claim with his insurance company and get reimbursed for his loss.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Did he have comprehensive coverage at the time it was stolen? If he spent that much on the car, I’ll bet he did. Sounds to me like the car belongs to the insurance company at this time. It has been many years since I adjusted auto claims, but I thought that when you settle a total theft loss, you have the owner transfer the title to the carrier in exchange for the settlement.
Your right, if he did have comp coverage on it at the time it would belong to the insurance company. But…. back in 1995 a kid at the age of 18 did they go for full coverage or just liability?
You are correct about that – handling of total theft(loss) claims. However, in 1995 the 1969 camaro wasn’t worth $16,000. Actually, $16,000 is a pretty good deal for such a car today. No wonder the eBay person bought it. Then again… it probably needed some of that $10,000 worth of work.
Back in 1995 that would have been a 26 year old camaro and a newly established “antique” vehicle. It would be today’s equlivent of purchasing an 85 IROC-Z Camaro for your high school student to drive around. You could get one for as low as $3k or as much as $10k depending on condition/miles and such.
He probably had a modest condition 69 camaro at 18 and was probably about $5,000 in value in 1995. It’s doubtful there was comp/coll on it. That’s just my opinion though. I never had a first generation camaro… so I may be a little off on what their values were 16 years ago.
It is also possible that the 69 camaro was a father/son project for him (him being the son). I mean… he talks about it like it was a family member.
I don’t know about the laws in Utah, but in Kalifornia (case law) if the buyer (unknowingly) of a vehicle doesn’t know it’s stolen and gets it fully insured he (Dockery) can make a claim with his insurance company and get reimbursed for his loss.