Mike,

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:59:04 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:

I'd said:

> >The thing that strikes me about that article:  If Insurance 
> >companies are claiming that a car with a transponder-key 
> >cannot be stolen, howcome the 
> >premium includes an amount for the risk of theft?  Surely if 
> >it can't be stolen, and they are going to deny any claim that 
> >it has been, they are taking 
> >money under false pretences, since the risk is zero?
> 
> It might stop the car be driven away (in reality it won't), but it doesn't stop the car being stolen by towing it or hoisting it on to a flat bed truck.

In that case why wasn't that possibility considered by the insurers?  Why jump straight to "It can't have been stolen"?  

This is rhetorical - I know that insurers will always try to minimise their payouts by any means possible.  Believe me, I know this!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist