Bugatti Veyron in Houston lagoon was Insurance Fraud

[EricJ]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/134834663.html

[CosmosMpower]

That guy is taking a pretty big gamble totalling a car that expensive, besides why would they pay over the value of the car which is obviously not 2.2MM

[OZMDD]

might be an agreed value policy. Either way, I think its going to be tough to prove fraud, even though it seems like it. I doubt the owner is willign to have a jury trial on this; not a sympathetic case.

[MiataMike]

Well if the car wasn't worth 2.2 million then the insurance company shouldn't have insured it for that amount. They had no problem taking his money when they were collecting on that 2.2 million dollar stated amount and now that its time to pay the piper for THEIR gamble, they want to flounder. Write the man a check and let the police decide if there is sufficient evidence of fraud.

[Titus]

+1

[jrj512]

Well if the car wasn't worth 2.2 million then the insurance company shouldn't have insured it for that amount. They had no problem taking his money when they were collecting on that 2.2 million dollar stated amount and now that its time to pay the piper for THEIR gamble, they want to flounder. Write the man a check and let the police decide if there is sufficient evidence of fraud.

So the fraud part should not matter?

[Nails]

Did you guys read this?
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/276126

It's a slam shut case. Motive, means, video, witnesses, and an informant. He didn't turn off the engine because mosquitoes were biting him. What a lyin' ass. If you don't remember from earlier articles, House' line of work is to rebuild and resell salvaged exotics.

[Titus]

So the fraud part should not matter?

They first have to prove the fraud, and that is going to be hard IMHO. I think that the fact that he insured it for more than he paid is irrelevant. He got a great deal on it and then insured it for the replacement cost. We see similar results here on a regular basis, just on a much smaller scale. I seem to recall a thread not to long ago where the insurance company offered one of our members approximately double what he originally paid for the car.

[OZMDD]

I agree that is chaps my ass that someone so blatantly defrauded their insurance and others do it all the time, costing me more money, but I also think the insurance company has to honor their contract.

Why would they agree to insure this ass anyway, based on his history? Because he was willing to pay thier premium. They deny people all the time, and they could've denied him.

I really hope they do have evidence to prove he intentionally wrecked the car and can legitimately deny his claim.

[Rob®]

He got a great deal on it and then insured it for the replacement cost. We see similar results here on a regular basis, just on a much smaller scale.

Exactly. You pay insurance premiums so the insurance company will pay to repair/replace your vehicle(s) to like or better condition than it was prior to the accident/theft/swim/whatever. Even if the price for a brand new Veyron is $1M, if there's a few year wait-list going that has to account for something payout wise. If nobody is selling the same condition/year car as the one he had, their part of the deal was to pay what is necessary to replace the car.

[762]

Well I would not say it is a "slam dunk" because it will probably go to a jury, and juries can be very dumb.

However, with no evidence supporting his claim other then a pelican, and the problem that very few jurors will be sympathetic to a man with a million dollar car. I don't think the outlook is good for him.

[762]

In order to prove fraud, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant made a material representation that was false, (2) the defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly as a positive assertion without any knowledge of its truth, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act upon the representation, and (4) the plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the representation, which caused the injury.

These are elements for common law fraud claim in Texas. (according to a quick google search)

you guys can do the fact analysis for them if you want.

I have a Civil Procedure exam on Monday so I will worry about Torts later.

[jeff_man]

Guess no one saw the video of him doing it 2 yours go, was pulled from youtube my his lawyer.

http://www.streetfire.net/video/Vide...ing_719255.htm

[Nails]

I saw it. I saw it in the original high definition too. Slam shut case.

[MiataMike]

Well I would not say it is a "slam dunk" because it will probably go to a jury, and juries can be very dumb.

However, with no evidence supporting his claim other then a pelican, and the problem that very few jurors will be sympathetic to a man with a million dollar car. I don't think the outlook is good for him.

Going on that statement about people not being sympathetic to the millionaire and his losses. What about the jury not being sympathetic to the insurance company and their billions?

And what about setting a presidence that insurance companies shouldn't have to pay claims just because someone could afford to lose their property?

[jeff_man]

There is also the back story that the guy owns a shop that works on overpriced cars. He was trying to get an insurance payday for 2x the sticker price and did the tx buy back where they don't take the title as salvage so that he would do the work at cost and still sell the car for a mil.

[MiataMike]

Sorry but there are better ways to commit fraud besides driving a car into a lake at speed

[762]

Going on that statement about people not being sympathetic to the millionaire and his losses. What about the jury not being sympathetic to the insurance company and their billions?

And what about setting a presidence that insurance companies shouldn't have to pay claims just because someone could afford to lose their property?

It is true that people do have it in for insurance companies as well. However, in this situation it is not the man going after the little guy over something relatable to a juror like an averaged price vehicle. Here I think a juror would most likely see this as another "rich" guy trying to game the system, and that would create a bias against the defendant. (That was my initial reaction after watching the video the first time.)

Matters of legal precedent are not really an issue here. There are plenty of cases of insurance fraud that get tried on the elements of the tort, the fact that it is a one million dollar car is irrelevant as a matter of law.

[OZMDD]

Yep, agreed w 762. A decent litigator will paint the insurance company as trying to keep from having to raise rates from getting defrauded by this guy, which a lot of jurors will relate to. Certainly more than they are likely to relate to the Bugatti owner.

The double-dip salvage buy-back resulting in a clean title won't sit well with jurors either, but might not be admissible at trial, as it could be prejudicial.

[OZMDD]

Sorry but there are better ways to commit fraud besides driving a car into a lake at speed

Do tell? Actually, if he'd kept his mouth shut before doing it and hadn't had the misfortune of being video'd by a car nut, he'd have a fairly believable claim, barring his history. Certainly less suspicious than the more-common "stolen and torched" approach.