Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / December 2007
Insurance Question
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Phil Rizzuto - 28 Nov 2007 18:35 GMT Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years later to collect more based upon the false bill of sale?
If so, what is the statute of limitations on this type of fraud?
I noticed it is very easy to report this fraud: https://external-apps.naic.org/ofrs/
If you knew someone who did this would you report them?
Phil
Brian V - 28 Nov 2007 18:58 GMT > Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV > for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Phil Since when does insurance care what you pay for it? Insurance is ACV (Actual Cash Value). There is also GAP insurance where it will cover the difference in the load if the ACV is less than what is owed.
Norman - 28 Nov 2007 22:35 GMT >Since when does insurance care what you pay for it? http://tinyurl.com/2jyhak
Insurance fraud can be defined under four testable parts:
Clear and willful action: Proscribed by law; To obtain money or value; Under false pretenses.
Steve - 28 Nov 2007 19:22 GMT > Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV > for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Phil If one did make false claims and profited from it, it would be insurance fraud. In many places insurance fraud is a felony, punishable by years of prison time and fines of tens of thousands of dollars. What did the person you know do? If you know about it and don't report it you can be considered an accessory. Honesty is the best policy!
Steve
Gregory Hall - 28 Nov 2007 22:49 GMT >> Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV >> for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Steve I heard of a fellow who was a cigar aficionado. He had a large humidor with thousands of dollars of cigars contained within. He had it insured for the value of the cigars. He smoked the cigars. He filed a claim because of loss by fire.
The insurance company paid him off. He cashed the check. The insurance company, after an anonymous tip filed suit against him for arson. The poor fellow went to court and lost. He had to pay back the money to the insurance company plus he got a year in jail for arson. It seems that even things that are burned during normal use can be considered arson provided you attempt to defraud an insurance company. Insurance companies ain't dumb. They didn't get so rich by being dumb.
Greg
GBinNC - 29 Nov 2007 00:09 GMT >I heard of a fellow who was a cigar aficionado. He had a large humidor with >thousands of dollars of cigars contained within. He had it insured for the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >defraud an insurance company. Insurance companies ain't dumb. They didn't >get so rich by being dumb. FTR, that tale was an urban myth, debunked years ago.
GB in NC
Eregon - 29 Nov 2007 02:31 GMT > FTR, that tale was an urban myth, debunked years ago. What else would you expect from a TROLL who stoops to pirating the name of that beloved shortstop and sportscaster?
Steve - 29 Nov 2007 02:47 GMT >> FTR, that tale was an urban myth, debunked years ago. > > What else would you expect from a TROLL who stoops to pirating the name of > that beloved shortstop and sportscaster? Holy cow!
Gregory Hall - 29 Nov 2007 03:14 GMT >>> FTR, that tale was an urban myth, debunked years ago. >> >> What else would you expect from a shortstop and sportscaster >> who stoops to pirating the name of that beloved TROLL? > > Holy cow! That was Harry Carry! Most beloved St. Louis Cardinal sportscaster. And maybe for the Cubs prior to the Cardinals.
Greg
Janet Wilder - 29 Nov 2007 14:27 GMT >> Holy cow! > > That was Harry Carry! Most beloved St. Louis Cardinal sportscaster. And > maybe for the Cubs prior to the Cardinals. It was "Scooter" not Carey.
There is a statue of a cow with the name "Holy Cow" in the Yogi Berra Museum in Montclair, NJ.
According to a few New Jersey people I know, he wasn't such a good guy. He expected preferential treatment and comps at restaurants and was not very giving of his time or money to local charities.
 Signature Janet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life
Pepperoni - 28 Nov 2007 22:41 GMT > Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV > for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Phil It sounds like finance fraud; the character borrows to buy the vehicle, pockets the surplus (or uses it for down payment) and plots insurance fraud at a later date to pay the bill. Even so, his scheme costs him more for taxes and registration.
You should hang with a better class of friends.
Matt Colie - 28 Nov 2007 22:48 GMT > Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV for > more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years later to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Phil Phil,
There are a number of issues not clear here.
Do you know for an absolute fact that the amount on the BOS is in error? (Are you certain that there was no side deal that effected the cash transaction? Are you willing to swear to this under oath?)
A very common error is to think that the statue of limitations is from the date of the infraction, when it actual fact, the clock starts running only after the infraction is discovered. So the date any fraud is perpetrated does not matter, only the date that it was found out.
As Brian stated, insurance claims pay based on value. If they were stupid enough to accept the presented BOS as a statement of true value, then they have accepted that value - end of discussion.
In most states, you have to pay sales tax based on the transaction value including any barter portion. So, a BOS for more than the actual price is kind of stupid because you will pay more sales tax.
I, personally, would just stay away from this one. If you were no party to the fraud, there is virtually no way anybody can prove that you were aware that any crime was committed.
Good Luck Guy
Matt Colie
Dave Lee - 28 Nov 2007 22:59 GMT "Matt Colie" <mattcolie@providenospam.net> wrote in
> A very common error is to think that the statue of limitations is from the > date of the infraction, when it actual fact, the clock starts running only > after the infraction is discovered. So the date any fraud is perpetrated > does not matter, only the date that it was found out. Not always. Some jurisdictions can have a dual SOL, such as 2 years from the time the fraud is exposed or should have been exposed, and/or 5 years from the commission of the fraud.
Dave in Lake Villa - 28 Nov 2007 23:51 GMT 'Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years later to collect more based upon the false bill of sale?'
REPLY: Seems to me it would be ; it is a willful plan of deception to profit at anothers (the insurance companys) expense. However, in the case of Agreed Value Insurance, it would not be fraud if the owner decided to insure something like a Classic Car for more than it was worth, because, the insurance premium is based on the Dollar Sum that the Owner comes up with.
'If you knew someone who did this would you report them? Phil'
REPLY: First , i would have to be absolutely sure that a deliberate Fraud had been perpetuated .. then, I would report it anonomously. All thats necessary for evil to thrive is for good people to become apathetic (tolerant) of lawlessness , then it spreads fast like a cancer ; this is one of the biggest reasons why America is morally corrupt today.
Janet Wilder - 29 Nov 2007 02:47 GMT > Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV for > more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years later to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Phil Was it actually a fraudulent bill of sale or did the dealer write it up as retail while the prices paid were wholesale.
The insurance company can only accept the actual bill of sale, so even is you paid less, the insured amount is higher. It's not fraud because your premiums have been based upon the higher value.
 Signature Janet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life
Steve - 29 Nov 2007 03:57 GMT > Was it actually a fraudulent bill of sale or did the dealer write it up as > retail while the prices paid were wholesale. Suppose it was this scheme:
"Our case: In the fifth year, one does not get a new rig comperable to the one that was totaled. One gets "the stated value" of the rig. We were lucky. Our bill of sale was written up at retail even though we didn't pay that amount. (the trade was also written at retail) If it had been written up at what we paid and we needed a replacement to live in fulltime, we'd have lost lots of thousands."
Apparently, the insurance was to pay more based upon a bill of sale that was not truthful about the actual price paid for the vehicle. The price paid was less as it says in the quotations. How can one "lose thousands" by not defrauding an insurance company? Shouldn't one be honest with the insurance company? Wouldn't you want them to be honorable with you? If the bill of sale states the retail price and an individual paid wholesale and represented or intended to represent to the insurance company that what they did pay was retail I'd call it fraud. I'd also question the ethics of the person doing it. As several have said here - run for the hills away from a person like that! Jail or prison is a good place for a fraudster to work on their foibles and turn themselves around to be a better citizen if or when they are released.
Steve
Janet Wilder - 29 Nov 2007 14:34 GMT >> Was it actually a fraudulent bill of sale or did the dealer write it up as >> retail while the prices paid were wholesale. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > their foibles and turn themselves around to be a better citizen if or when > they are released. That bill of sale is the ONLY one the insurance company recognizes. One can tried to lower their rates by telling the insurance company that they paid less, but with the rig replacement policy, they will ONLY accept the bill of sale.
By greedily insisting on the retail-priced bill of sale, the insurance seals its own fate should there be an accident.
There is no fraud involved when one has the bill of sale from the dealer that accurately reflects the retail prices of the purchase and the trade. The insurance company is looking to establish a value and will only take what's on paper, not what's verbal.
 Signature Janet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life
Steve - 29 Nov 2007 15:54 GMT >>> Was it actually a fraudulent bill of sale or did the dealer write it up >>> as retail while the prices paid were wholesale. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > The insurance company is looking to establish a value and will only take > what's on paper, not what's verbal. But what if what is on the paper is not true? If the insurance company wanted to establish value they should look at what is really paid for it - a cancelled check, bank transfer etc. They could also check the accounts receivable of the business. I'm surprised a business would engage in such activity because the bills of sale would not match the accounts receivable. Also the business is putting their franchise at risk. Some manufacturers require that dealers do not offer "discounts" or "deals" on their products because it undercuts other franchisees.
If the insurance company needed to know only retail value, they could easily look it up in an industry standard book and the bill of sale is meaningless - ever hear of "book value"?. The quote does state that if the bill of sale was written for less than retail the RV owner would have received less money from the insurance company. This would mean that retail value is not the factor, but what RV owner paid for the item, just as it says from the quotation. Here is the portion of the quote:
>>Our bill of sale was written up at retail even though we >> didn't pay that amount. (the trade was also written at retail) If it had >> been written up at what we paid and we needed a replacement to live in >> fulltime, we'd have lost lots of thousands." From this we know the bill of sale was not accurate. The inaccurate bill of sale was submitted to the insurance company and more money was received than if an accurate bill of sale was used. Also from the same quote, but not included here, is the mention that the insurance company was very tight with their money and unwilling to pay. Certainly, if they had known less was paid for the vehicle, they would have come up with less money to the RV owner.
A bill of sale is a legal instrument. It is recognized by courts, governments, agencies etc as a legal document and is used to constitute proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_sale
"A bill of sale is a legal document made by a 'seller' to a purchaser, reporting that on a specific date, at a specific locality, and for a particular sum of money or other "value received", the seller sold to the purchaser a specific item of personal, or parcel of real, property of which he had lawful possession."
Why was this legal instrument falsified? Why would anyone submit as falsified legal document to an insurance company?
So far we have:
1. An admission that the bill was sale was not accurate, it did not reflect the actual selling price.
2. The innacurate bill of sale was submitted to an insurance company.
3. The insurance company paid thousands more based upon the innacurate information in the bill of sale.
4. If the bill of sale had the actual selling price, the insurance company would have paid out less.
Hopefully the bill of sale was not mailed to the insurance company via the US Postal system.
Steve
Janet Wilder - 29 Nov 2007 17:41 GMT > But what if what is on the paper is not true? I suppose the insurance company can subrogate the dealer.
BTW, the insurance company can't always find the value of the RV because the books do not list the values of all options, especially when there has been custom work on the RV order.
 Signature Janet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life
Steve - 29 Nov 2007 18:35 GMT >> But what if what is on the paper is not true? > > I suppose the insurance company can subrogate the dealer. Or the insurance company carrying the liability policy (errors and omissions)of the dealer could subrogate the RV owner. It could have been an honest mistake by the dealer, but the RV owner has claimed knowledge of the error and used it to their benefit at the expense of the insurance company. It can be viewed that it was the RV owner acted in bad faith. The loss to the insurance company would have never occured except for the willful action of the RV owner. The RV owner had a duty to disclose to the insurance company what they actually paid for the RV. The insurance investigator would first go to the RV owner, question them and compare the owners response to the evidence he has and then decide what action to take. They may take legal action, they might just make it more expensive/difficult for the RV owner to get insurance. Insurance companies may be tight fisted when paying claims but one can only imagine how they would act when they feel they have been wronged. They have strong legal teams, deep pockets and a desire to make examples of people who have done them wrong. They could spend tens of thousands just to collect a few thousand because it is a deterrent to others who might do the same. Just like the IRS, a reputation for ruthlessness works in their benefit.
> BTW, the insurance company can't always find the value of the RV because > the books do not list the values of all options, especially when there has > been custom work on the RV order. That's why a cancelled check, wire transfer statement, account receivable or any other bank record is preferable. It shows what money was actually exchanged. It is not in the best interest of the RV dealer to overstate their income so the accounts receivable should be more accurate than a bill of sale.
Wilbur Hubbard - 29 Nov 2007 03:30 GMT > Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV > for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years > later to collect more based upon the false bill of sale? T'ain't none too swuft agittin a bill-o-sale for MORE than you paid for sumthin. I've boughten an RV or two and what yer SUPOSSE t'do is git the bill of sale for about a quarter of the cash you really payed. Make sure it sez "as is, where is" on it which makes em think it's a piece a junk. Thata way the greedy tax man when you go to register it don't think yer trying to screw them outta their dough. So you end up paying sales tax on about 1/4 of what the state gumint wants ya to be paying it on. Now, THAT's smart thinking. I bet I've saved thousands of samolians thisaway in my lifetime. It just ain't right for any gummint to collecting sales tax more'n once time every time an RV's sold. They've done got way too greedy. Ya gotta screw em right back.
Wilbur Hubbard
Gregory Hall - 01 Dec 2007 18:30 GMT >> Is it considered insurance fraud if one gets a bill of sale for their RV >> for more then they paid for it and then when it is totaled a few years [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wilbur Hubbard Wilbur, you sound like some dumb hillbilly hick. Did you have a bit part in the movie "Deliverance?" I bet you were the guy who did the ear twisting while you yelled "squeal, squeal!"
Greg
Ken Harrison - 02 Dec 2007 09:27 GMT > Wilbur, you sound like some dumb hillbilly hick. Did you have a bit part in > the movie "Deliverance?" I bet you were the guy who did the ear twisting > while you yelled "squeal, squeal!" Perhaps, Mr. Hall, you could explain why you feel it necessary to insult the integrity of Wilbur's question. One of the unfortunate things I find on this newsgroup is the constant barrage of insults directed at individuals who, it seems to me, might be otherwise unknown to the poster. That sentiment does not include, of course, the religious diatribes posted by a few of our regulars. (If religion is a matter of faith, who is to say that one faith is "more better" than another?).
Religious extremism aside (as if it were possible on this newsgroup), I would hope that other discussions could be held with a modicum of civility. What, exactly, is gained by being so profoundly belligerent?
Ken H
|
|
|