Car Insurance Quotes
Specific cases of questionable expert conclusions
Case 1
Insure.com has obtained documents that show apparent failures of the use of the scientific method by several insurance company forensics investigators. In one case from Mississippi in 1997, an investigator hired by Progressive Insurance examined a burned '95 Camaro for evidence of theft. He stated under oath that "based on the extent of the burn . . . the location of some of the burns and other things . . . we firmly believe this was a case of a direct act of an individual, which is the definition I believe for arson."
[Let Insure.com help you find affordable car insurance now.]
However, the investigator never performed a fire cause-and-origin test and did not test for fire accelerants in the vehicle. The investigator's conclusion was apparently not supported by any investigative documentation.
In the same case, the investigator testified that the GM antitheft system (Pass Key II), with which the '95 Camaro is equipped, cannot be bypassed. "For [the vehicle] to move from Point A to Point B under its own power, it would have had to have been running. Because when [the Pass Key II] fails . . . you've got a 4,000-pound sled," the expert testified, indicating that a vehicle with the Pass Key II system cannot be started if the system fails.
| The Pass Key II system sometimes fails, allowing the vehicle to be driven away. |
But that's an incorrect statement, according to the Mitchell Manual, an automotive publication that describes how vehicles and components work and that helps mechanics troubleshoot problems. Pass Key II is an antitheft device that allows only the owner of the vehicle who has a correct key to start the vehicle. If an incorrect key is inserted into the ignition lock, Pass Key II is supposed to disable the vehicle's starting system. However, the Pass Key II system sometimes fails, allowing the vehicle to be driven away.
The expert in Case 1 characterized the Pass Key II system as impossible to defeat. "The only thing impossible is that statement," says Barnet Fagel, a Ventura County, Calif.-based consultant who specializes in vehicle security. "The system is very easy to defeat." Fagel was surprised that auto theft investigators are characterizing Pass Key II as impenetrable, and he has testified in a California court that the system can be bypassed through the vehicle's ventilation system.
In this case, Progressive's auto theft expert doesn't appear to be an expert, judging by his lack of knowledge of the shortcomings of this common antitheft device.
"The quality of this insurance company-hired investigator was poor," says Todd Burwell, a Mississippi attorney and lawyer for the insured in this case. "His qualifications seemed to be in order but some of his conclusions were inaccurate and some of the investigative techniques were faulty."
Wheeler of State Farm characterizes the investigator in Case 1 as "incorrect." "What's to say that the vehicle can't be put on a tow truck?" Wheeler asks. "We try to trust everyone, but we have to be able to verify that trust. [That investigator] should have produced supporting documentation for his conclusion."
Case 2
| The investigator testified that his company doesn't have accurate records of who sent them evidence and from where it was sent. |
In a case in Nevada from 1998, this time involving GRE Insurance Co., an investigator stated under oath that notes he makes during his investigation are destroyed after his final report is typed. The investigator also testified that his company doesn't have accurate records of who sent them evidence and from where it was sent.
In the same case, the investigator's examination involved taking apart an ignition-lock cylinder in order to determine what key was last used. The investigator was asked if he could reassemble the ignition-lock cylinder exactly as he found it at the beginning of his investigation. "Well . . . I probably could not recreate that exactly," he said. The evidence, if another party wanted to conduct its own examination, could have been tainted by this investigator's techniques.
"Sometimes it's necessary to do a destructive examination of evidence," notes John Machnicki, director of The Travelers' Loss Prevention & Engineering Laboratory in Windsor, Conn., which conducts forensics examinations of ignition-lock cylinders. "But you better document the dickens out of it because there's the real potential of spoilation of evidence."
Shan Haider, claims investigations manager at Farmers Insurance Co., says, "If they were throwing their notes away, personally I would have a problem with that. If you use your notes to make a certain decision, you should preserve those notes. It's easier [for the expert] if the case goes to trial. He or she can refresh his or her memory with the notes."
Despite her personal feelings on the matter, Haider says Farmers doesn't require its investigators to keep notes on each case. "Honestly, the subject has never come up," she admits.
Case 3
A GEICO-hired investigator's final report following a 1998 examination of an Acura Vigor stolen from Hartford, Conn., and recovered in New York City states, "Examining the exterior, I found that the tires had been taken. The spare was in the trunk and appeared to be in good condition. There was a Honda rim and tire in the trunk also. The front end of the vehicle had collision damage. The grille and both front fenders were missing. All of the windows were intact."
GEICO, with the investigator's examination report, attempted to deny the owner's theft claim based on its assertion that the "vehicle was not in a state of theft."
"[The investigators] were less than scientific," accuses Don Holtman, the Connecticut attorney for the policyholder in this case. "They indicated that there was no oil in the car, but they didn't state why there was no oil in it." The implication of the lack of oil was, according to Holtman, that the policyholder had arranged for the theft of his car because it was leaking oil, among other problems. However, the investigators failed to mention in their final report that the car showed signs of being dragged over asphalt and concrete, thus ripping a hole in the oil pan. The investigators' final report was apparently incomplete.
The forensics examiners also claimed they could identify the last key that was used in the car. "I had contact with a variety of people, FBI personnel, and two other auto theft experts," says Holtman, "and they stated that the [insurance investigator's] test cannot demonstrate that any key was the last key used to start that car. The test is simply not useful."
Regarding the investigators who claim they can identify the last key used in a vehicle, Machnicki of Travelers says, "We're not 100 percent sure how they do [the test], and we're not sure if they really can [reliably] do it at all." Machnicki says Travelers would not be comfortable relying on a test that claims to identify the last key used in a vehicle.
GEICO eventually paid the policyholder's claim.
Basic skills can be lacking
| "You have to know how cars are assembled, the methods used by thieves to steal the cars, and the protective devices the vehicles employ." |
"An auto theft forensics examiner has to know three things," says independent consultant Fagel. "You have to know how cars are assembled, the methods used by thieves to steal the cars, and the protective devices the vehicles employ." The expert should also be on the lookout for new protective devices introduced to the market, he says.
In the 12 cases of auto theft that Michigan attorney Jason Liss has handled, "[the insurance company expert] doesn't give a comprehensive evaluation that shows both sides of the argument. His reports all look the same and one of his associates is not even qualified to be considered an expert." The investigator's associate admitted in court that he had no experience in picking a lock, which is one method thieves commonly use to steal cars.
What you can do to protect yourself
"I think there's a pervasive attitude to deny claims," says attorney Liss. "Insurance companies give claims the 'smell test'. If it smells fishy, they deny. All you can do [if your theft claim is denied] is seek the advice of an attorney. You have to be 100 percent honest with the insurance company, because any material misrepresentation can be grounds to legitimately deny your claim."
Holtman and Burwell, attorneys for policyholders in two different auto theft claim cases, agree. "Seek legal counsel," advises Burwell. "Let the legal counsel then seek the advice of [auto theft] experts."
Rose Matthews, who got Commerce Insurance to reverse its decision on a claim it was going to deny, offers her advice to other policyholders in the unfortunate position of having their theft claim denied by their insurer: "Research every nook and cranny of the vehicle. Fight it all the way and pressure your insurer for a third-party investigation, someone who isn't prejudiced. The worst feeling in the world is being accused of theft and having to prove that you didn't do it."
Back to page 1: How auto theft investigators work — and how to hire your own
Ready to get a quote?
Get quick and easy auto insurance quotes
