Howard Winter wrote:

>>> 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"? 

Because in that case, IIRC the expert concluded that the car has been
driven. From which (with the wrong, but still, assumption that without the
right keys it can't be driven, together with the insured's affirmation that
he still had all keys) they concluded that the story of the insured was
wrong. From which they concluded that they don't have to pay (probably
according to the insurance contract).

Gerhard

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