Car stolen? It may still cost you, as Kamloops man finds out

[thumper]

something for those of you with winter beaters, etc...

Car stolen? It may still cost you, as Kamloops man finds out - British Columbia - CBC News

ICBC says the issue has nothing to do with its policies, if insurance wasn't purchased

Photo of Maryse Zeidler

Maryse Zeidler · @MaryseZeidler · CBC News
December 12, 2016
stolen pickup truck

This is all that's left of Will Iblings's pickup truck, which was found at the bottom of a ravine on Sumas Mountain in Abbotsford, B.C. (Jack's Towing)
1.1k
shares
130
comments
A man in Kamloops, B.C., is warning vehicle owners about the perils of opting out of theft insurance after he's been forced to foot a hefty bill to recover his stolen pickup truck.

His truck was a 1996 GMC worth about $1,300, and Will Iblings didn't think twice when he declined getting comprehensive auto insurance on it.

"Since the value on it was so low, I figured if something did happen to it, I'd be able to replace it fairly easily," Iblings said.

The comprehensive insurance would have covered theft of the truck, but it was a risk the 28-year-old was willing to take.

So, when the truck did get stolen over the May long weekend this year, he reported it to police but figured he would just have to absorb the loss himself.

Months went by with no news about what had happened to it.

"To be honest, especially after this long, I kind of gave up hope as far as finding it or hearing anything," he said.

Will Iblings stolen truck

Will Iblings and his wife, Hannah, were shocked to hear they would have to pay at least $2,000 to recover his stolen pickup truck — and it's especially painful right before Christmas. (Will Iblings)
Unexpected — and pricey — call

But a little more than a week ago, he got an unexpected call from a towing company in Abbotsford, B.C., which is more than 280 kilometres away from his home.

His truck had been found at the bottom of a 450-metre ravine on Sumas Mountain, and the towing company told him he was going to have to pay at least $2,000 to get it out.

The call had come in on a Friday, and the towers told him the GMC would be towed the following Monday.

Abbotsford police confirm they found the truck and reached out to Jack's Towing — the company with the main towing contract for the city.

They added, the truck couldn't stay where it was, because it could be an environmental hazard.

Iblings was shocked.

He figured that because he had reported the truck stolen it was no longer his responsibility — similar to reporting a credit card theft.

Stolen pickup truck

Will Iblings says he paid about $1,300 for his work truck. Given how little he paid for it, he didn't think it was worth getting comprehensive auto insurance for it. (Will Iblings)
No insurance, no claim

Not so, according to ICBC.

"With no insurance coverage, the vehicle owner is responsible for towing costs as the vehicle is the property of the owner," ICBC said in a written statement.

An ICBC spokesman explained that the issue has nothing to do with the insurer's policies — if comprehensive insurance wasn't purchased, there's no claim to be made.

When Iblings spoke to ICBC, they told him there is no statute of limitations on when the last owner of a vehicle — identified by the traceable vehicle identification number — could be expected to pay for these types of costs.

"I don't understand how reporting it stolen, going through all the correct paperwork and everything, how something like this can still be my responsibility after not only seven months, but five years, 20 years, 30 years," Iblings said.

Now that Iblings knows this information, he has been warning others. He doesn't want anyone else to land in a similar situation.

"Everyone we've talked to has no idea that this is an issue. And so it's not even on their radar for them," he said.

"If I had known this was even a possibility, it definitely would have swayed my options and my decision-making process as I went through the insurance."

The truck was recovered from the ravine on Saturday. Iblings says he hasn't received the bill yet, but he will grudgingly pay it when he does.

[dared3vil0]

Interesting. I knew with no comp you obviously would be on the hook for the value of the vehicle, but I didn't think towing charges and the like would.

[fsy82]

that makes complete sense..u didn't have the full insurance and vehicle is still registered under you. You would be responsible for the associated costs to have it removed.

[underscore]

Logically it makes sense, although maybe the brokers should be informing you of this when you decline theft coverage.

[6o4__boi]

damn...will keep that in mind if i ever buy a beater

[TouringTeg]

Wow that is an eye opener.

So depending on how the thieves dispose of your vehicle, you could get a small bill or a large one for removal.

Thanks for sharing

[coneZONE]

Ok, in this case... I hope they never find my Civic :/

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by TouringTeg

Wow that is an eye opener.

So depending on how the thieves dispose of your vehicle, you could get a small bill or a large one for removal.

Thanks for sharing

Imagine the thieves torch the car and the resulting fire takes out a building.
Or would that be a criminal act and the owner would be off the hook?

[inv4zn]

As is with any information like this, there are endless what-if-this, what-if-that scenarios, and the result will vary so much.

I think the real lesson here is to just get the damn insurance.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by fsy82

that makes complete sense..u didn't have the full insurance and vehicle is still registered under you. You would be responsible for the associated costs to have it removed.

I disagree. After going through the entire formal declaration process of it being lost (stolen, in this case), the owner should be freed from any liabilities the lost property might be causing. Had the owner not follow through on reporting it being lost, then OK, I agree the owner should still be on the hook. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting and declaring the loss?

Now, if some sort of investigation discovers that the owner had faked the stolen / lost report to avoid any sort of responsibility, then OK, he should still be on the hook for liabilities. But as it is right now, this whole policy is fxxked up.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

Imagine the thieves torch the car and the resulting fire takes out a building.
Or would that be a criminal act and the owner would be off the hook?

That might be covered under fire & vandalism, although the buildings insurance would probably cover it under arson. Hard to say.

[fliptuner]

Semi-related: this is also why, when you sell a car, you make sure it gets registered in the buyers name.

[Fafine]

Originally Posted by Traum

I disagree. After going through the entire formal declaration process of it being lost (stolen, in this case), the owner should be freed from any liabilities the lost property might be causing. Had the owner not follow through on reporting it being lost, then OK, I agree the owner should still be on the hook. Otherwise, what's the point of reporting and declaring the loss?

Now, if some sort of investigation discovers that the owner had faked the stolen / lost report to avoid any sort of responsibility, then OK, he should still be on the hook for liabilities. But as it is right now, this whole policy is fxxked up.

then whos gonna foot the bill?

[vitaminG]

^ same people who foot the bill when someone dumps an old fridge.

I don't understand why they keep talking about comprehensive coverage, is that not completely separate from fire/theft?

[Great68]

Originally Posted by vitaminG

^ same people who foot the bill when someone dumps an old fridge.

I don't understand why they keep talking about comprehensive coverage, is that not completely separate from fire/theft?

Literally the first thing that comes up when you google the term "Comprehensive insurance":

With Comprehensive coverage, your insurance company pays for damage to your auto caused by an event other than a collision, such as fire, theft or vandalism. If you hit an animal, or if your auto is flooded or stolen, Comprehensive coverage will apply.

[JesseBlue]

I don't remember but can't he cancel the insurance after reporting it stolen and it hasn't been seen for x days or weeks?

[godwin]

oops

Removing on the car off the side of a cliff doesn't exactly count as damage to the car..

Your insurance company pays for damage to your auto caused by an event other than a collision, such as fire, theft or vandalism

Originally Posted by Great68

Literally the first thing that comes up when you google the term "Comprehensive insurance":

[dabbin]

Originally Posted by godwin

oops

Removing on the car off the side of a cliff doesn't exactly count as damage to the car..

...

The car was stolen, damaged beyond repair while left at the bottom of a mountain, and you don't see that as damage to the car covered by comprehensive? It literally meets 2 of the requirements (theft, vandalism). Any damage bringing it up will be negligible to it ROLLING DOWN A MOUNTAIN. lol. And that minor extra damage would still be covered as it would be part of the original claim - tow bill included (if he was insured.)

[godwin]

What I mean it is recovery and removal the vehicle will be a different line item. Depending on the fine print, the insurance can decide on whether to cover it on not.

eg If a car hit a light standard, the city will invoice the insurance company for the repairs.

Originally Posted by dabbin

...

The car was stolen, damaged beyond repair while left at the bottom of a mountain, and you don't see that as damage to the car covered by comprehensive? It literally meets 2 of the requirements (theft, vandalism). Any damage bringing it up will be negligible to it ROLLING DOWN A MOUNTAIN. lol. And STILL covered as it would be part of the original claim - tow bill included (if he was insured.)

[Inaii]

Theft is under specified perils, is it not? The only thing I have on my car is specified perils (which all the autoplan brokers I've ever been to have said that covers fire and theft, but not vandalism anymore) and 2mil liability. But if theft is now considered part of a comp, maybe I should put it on there...

[asma123]

Makes perfect sense to me. Technically it is still his car and property so he has to fork out the bill associated with it unless he can find who was the person responsible for the vehicle ending up there and just suing him for the money/damage

[1BADMR2]

Originally Posted by thumper

something for those of you with winter beaters, etc...

Car stolen? It may still cost you, as Kamloops man finds out - British Columbia - CBC News

Completely off topic but I was looking for wheels for my 2015 F150 on CL and those wheels on the stolen truck look very similar to these and in the same area where the truck was found. Hmmmm...

https://vancouver.craigslist.ca/rds/wto/5914899387.html
https://abbotsford.craigslist.ca/wto/5880112372.html

[SpartanAir]

I think this makes perfect sense. If you want to save money on insurance on a beater though, always get comprehensive, but save money and don't get collision.

If it gets stolen, or you get a broken window, it gets covered, and it's not that much to keep a low deductible. But if a $1300 vehicle is in a major accident, meaning something more than a body panel you can go pick up at a junkyard, it will probably cost more to repair than to replace the whole vehicle.

But now he's footing the bill for an expensive tow, instead of getting a reasonable cheque for the value of his shitty truck, all to save a tiny bit of money per year. Makes sense to me.

[dabbin]

Originally Posted by godwin

What I mean it is recovery and removal the vehicle will be a different line item. Depending on the fine print, the insurance can decide on whether to cover it on not.

eg If a car hit a light standard, the city will invoice the insurance company for the repairs.

Which is all part of the claim. If your insurance covers you (if you are NOT at fault, and had the appropriate coverage), the recovery would be covered as it is a direct result of your claim. Just like if you are in an accident on the road, the recovery of your vehicle is done if it is not able to be safely driven - covered by ICBC if not at fault, covered by ICBC if at fault you pay your deductible and your premiums potentially go up (depending on level of discount), or covered by ICBC and they demand repayment/sue you for every penny they paid because you were or were/weren't at fault BUT you had no insurance/they had reason to void your insurance leaving you uninsured for the claim - including recovery (like the original article).

If you hit non-vehicle property (Your light standard example), the owner goes after the insurer for damages. The insurer will either cover it as part of your claim (if you are not at fault) or come after you for damages if you are at fault and without insurance/voided your insurance for that accident (impairment being the most common).

[RiceIntegraRS]

There are so many cars in the tow yards as we speak because the owners don't want to foot the bill for the tow charge cause its more than what the car is worth....... I've never heard of the tow companies going after the owners for the money. And I've done it myself