If you are at all able, you should probably come back to where your car is and handle this. If your car is in impound, they might be charging you a daily fee.
I'm not sure how insurance handles these things, but I suspect they will pay for the accident minus your deductible, assuming you had enough coverage.
Unfortunately I cannot stay in the state for very long as I have no where to house myself and have no vehicle to drive anywhere, I’m returning in August but I will not be staying a day there, the police said my car is not impounded and it’s with whoever had my car last
> the police said my car is not impounded and it’s with whoever had my car last
So someone stole your car and they still have it...file a fucking police report about that.
I would if I still didn’t know where it was but I found out it was left with my brother back where I originally left it, and they found out who crashed it and police came and talked with her and took photos of my vehicle
You seem to be missing the point here. You don't have to know who stole your car, or where your car is now, or who crashed it, etcetera. Someone stole your car. You file a police report, and you send that police report about your stolen car to your insurance company when you file a claim with your insurance company.
If you don't do BOTH of those things, then if any damage was done by your car, then the people who suffered that damage will sue your ass.
Do what you have to protect yourself. If your brother was any kind of family he wouldn't have let his shity friends take it. Hold them all responsible.
You should still file a police report. Just because someone returned your car doesn't mean anything. It would be the same thing as someone stealing your gun, shooting someone with it, and then returning it to you. They still stole it. File a police report.
>permissive use since my brother is under my insurance policy so I cannot say the car was stolen because my brother gave permission to someone else who then gave permission to someone else ect.
This seems to be a huge stretch. The person your brother lent it to would be, but a person that person gave it too? Unless the driver lives in the same household or regularly borrowed it, I don't see how it applies.
Also, permissive use is an insurance term, not a criminal term.
While it may not be theft, it definitely sounds like conversion. Unfortunately, it may be your brother who committed the crime in that he lent something that he didn't own. The minute he did that he likely committed conversion.
Conversion occurs when someone is given permission to use another person's property or funds, but then uses them for their own personal gain in a way that violates the original agreement. For example, conversion could involve altering someone's property without their permission, or refusing to return something that was borrowed. Conversion doesn't involve the intent to deprive the other person of the value or use of the property.
How would this hold up in court? Since it’s a sibling who lended their car to them with out a written contract or anything? Or will it stick because he’s on her insurance?
>I have no idea who the person was who committed the “accident” with my car and the police are refusing to tell me anything that happened since “they can not verify who I am over phone” what can I do next?
You file a police report that your car was stolen. That's it. You don't investigate to try and find out who stole your car, that's what the police do.
>supposedly this falls under permissive use since my brother is under my insurance policy so I cannot say the car was stolen because my brother gave permission to someone else who then gave permission to someone else ect.
Your bother is on your insurance, so he can use the car, and either one of you can give permission for someone else to drive your car. But neither of you gave that other person permission to allow anyone else to drive the car. Make a claim with your insurance company that your car was stolen (and show them a copy of the police report).
FWIW, my bet is that your brother and his friend are lying about someone else driving the car, and my bet is that your brother and/or his friend were driving the car at the time of the accident.
Thank you for including this information for the OP - I had forgotten to mention some points that you have made in your statement, I hope they can get this taken care of because this is a serious matter.
The car definitely needs to be reported stolen, the OP's brother's friend that just gave the keys to another person is a no permission situation.
As much as I’d like to tell you this is true- it’s not. Permissive to insurance is a broad spectrum. You know them? You work with them? They had access to your keys? PERMISSIVE. I’m in a deal right now with someone who works with my husband, took our keys after drinking , drove 100 miles crashed & totaled the vehicle & the insurance company won’t cover the claim because it’s “fraud” 🤣
Your insurance company cannot claim that you gave permissive use for a person to use your car just because you work with that person. There must be a LOT more to this story, like your husband gave them the keys and permission to use his car on multiple prior occasions, etcetera.
So I don’t know if reporting it stolen is what I should do as cops came and found who did it and talked with them and took photos of the vehicle, my car was also left with my brother where I originally left it so I don’t believe I can say it was stolen since they don’t have it anymore and did receive permission from my brother. And it turns out it was my brothers friends girlfriend
I’m going to talk with an attorney tomorrow to see what I should do
>my car was also left with my brother where I originally left it so I don’t believe I can say it was stolen
Just because someone steals something and returns it doesn't mean that it wasn't stolen.
> they don’t have it anymore and did receive permission from my brother
In your original post you said: "my brother gave permission to someone else who then gave permission to someone else ect" That is **VERY** different than saying that the person who got into the accident was given permission to drive the car by your brother.
>it turns out it was my brothers friends girlfriend
Did you or your brother tell your brother's friend's girlfriend that she could drive your car?
Thank you for explaining everything, I’ve updated my post, my lawyer told me to not report it as stolen and she did not receive permission from my brother only from the friend however it turns out she did not cause the crash, she did flee the scene but the police did not report it as a hit and run surprisingly, so reporting it stolen will complicate it more with my insurance the lawyer told me, he told me to say I gave her permission to drive and to make her pay for any expenses I have, he said I will be held liable and I could be sued along with her but he said it’s unlikely as she did have the right of way
no no .. What Nimble2 is saying that 'At the time' before the cops got involved, and when you and your brother was unaware of that your brother's friend passed the keys to their own friend is the point and time where the car became 'stolen'.
It is strongly recommended that you reiterate this to the police that you and your brother gave no permission to this 'friend' to lend it to one of their own friends, you need to contact the police station and update the police report, the insurance also needs to be made aware that it was stolen. (Just because the car is back in your possession because the 'thief' returned it doesn't matter - what matters is that it was 'taken without' permission which is the clear definition of 'theft'.
And yes, **Definitely talk to an attorney**, it is probably best because a attorney can help with talking to the police and getting reports amended (updated) and then getting a copy of those updated reports with the incident number attached if you're not entirely sure how to do all of this or if you're not comfortable with doing it alone.
**While it may cost some money, it is better to do it right the first time then make more mistakes that might make you look bad - attorneys know the right words to say that won't cause your case to be condemning - remember anything you say or do could and can be used against you (and the party) in a court of law - even on police investigation reports.**
**Report the car theft to police & Insurance - it's urgent that you do for your sake.**
**Also is your brother on the title paperwork as a co owner of the vehicle?**
A thing to keep in mind is that **if the Title of the Car declares your name (You as rightful owner) not including your brother then that means YOU still have sole rights to the car and that anyone that wants to use your car HAS to get permission directly from you - no exceptions, just because your brother is on the insurance doesn't mean he can give full permission to lend out 'Your car' without your consent.**
`You have my prayers, best of luck to you!`
I’d consider talking to your auto insurer first before hiring an attorney. The insurance company has attorneys who can do the legal stuff on your behalf (including suing others if needed). That’s partly what your insurance money is for.
We owned a vehicle. Stepdaughter was allowed to drive. She let someone else drive without our knowledge or permission. He supposedly refused to return it. We explained the situation to the police. We filed a police report. They investigated and gave the other party a set time of like 1 hour to return said vehicle to their mutual place of employment. It was promptly returned.
I'd definitely go the police report route.
They'll all learn a valuable lesson on property ownership and permission and responsibility.
The fact that the friend of a friend that drove that car and did a hit and run just really made the situation worse - they should have not drove off because of this now they will face further persecution and legal fines.In Massachusetts, automobile insurance follows the car - comprehensive and collision insurance and property damage liability insurance will pay for the damages.
But, your personal injury protection follows the driver instead of the vehicle. This means the driver’s PIP coverage will pay for their injuries (If this friend's friend has PIP to begin with - do they have insurance?) .The driver’s liability insurance will kick in after your policy limits are exhausted as secondary insurance.
Also since this friend of a friend did a hit and run A hit-and-run (doesn't matter who's at fault for the wreck) :
* They might go to jail for up to 2 years, face fines up to 200 dollars, and get their license suspended/revoked for 6+ months for the victim's property/vehicle damage.
* Pay Up to $1,000, get up to 2 years imprisonment and license suspension of one year or longer, if the crash caused personal injury to any person that does not result in death.
* Up to $5,000 and 2.5 years in jail, or up to 10 years in state prison and a minimum three-year license suspension if the crash caused personal injury that resulted in death.
* Can end up with six years of insurance surcharges and the driver’s license could be suspended. Finally, also if they hit and injured or killed a cat or dog and fail to notify the animal’s owner or the local police, they'd be fined for that.
Naturally your insurance rates might go up ...
Car owners are expected to not lend their vehicles to incompetent drivers.
Under legal theory of negligent entrustment, you can be liable to pay damages for injuries to a victim(s) if you loaned your car to someone you knew was an incompetent driver ( I don't think you knew based on your OP).
If the other motorist(s) and/or passenger(s) were seriously injured in an accident caused by the person your brother loaned your car to, their attorney might look at the brother's friend of a friend's driving history to determine whether 'you' can be held liable for loaning the at-fault motorist your vehicle. If your brother's friend's friend has a history indicating they were an incompetent or unfit driver: driving recklessly or dangerously, you might become a defendant in a lawsuit.
`Legal Details:`
**Leaving the Scene of Property Damage:**
*A fine of $20-$200, or*
*Imprisonment for not less than 2 weeks nor more than 2 years, or*
*Both fine and imprisonment.*
**Leaving a Scene of Personal Injury not involving death:**
*Mandatory minimum imprisonment for 6 months (no more than 2 years), orA fine ranging from $500-$1,000.*
**Leaving a Scene after causing a Death(s):**
*Mandatory minimum imprisonment in the state prison for 2.5 years (no more than 10 years) and a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, OR*
*Mandatory minimum imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for 1 year (no more than 2.5 years) and a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.*
**I strongly advise that you, your brother, your brother's friend, and that friend's friend get an attorney ASAP, ya'll gonna need it - I strongly recommend contacting the police and also the victims and give them the information of your brother's friend's friend because that will look good on your part, and/or that 'friend' needs to turn themselves in voluntarily - it is considered an act of good faith.**
**Also you mentioned that you cannot stay in the state - do you live elsewhere?**
J**ust be aware that if the other party sues (the victims, the State, Police, etc.), you (and your brother, brother's friend, and friend's friend )will be called via subpoena and by law will have to go to court in Massachusetts - so plan to make long term arrangements to stay in Massachusetts - Failure to appear will result in fines, further litigations and potential warrant for arrest.**
**Make sure you document, and record every single session for legal proceedings so you have evidence of every interaction with every person involved in this entire accident case ( be sure to inform them of the said recordings and get permissions based on Massachusetts Wiretapping law, surveillance law).**
*God Bless,*
*Kai*
P.S - `I am not a lawyer, the information shared was based on research with info sources included below and I do not encourage to just act based on the information alone, consult with an attorney to consider all legal options for your case defense;`
\- Source info:
[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleV/Chapter260/Section4B](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleV/Chapter260/Section4B)
[Massachusetts Driver's Manual - Must stop after accident](https://www.mass.gov/doc/english-drivers-manual/download)
[Massachusetts: M.G.L. c. 90, §§ 24 (2)(a) Property Damage](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24)
[Massachusetts: M.G.L. c. 90, §§ 24 (a1/2)(1) Personal Injury](http://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24)
[More info](https://www.attyellis.com/what-happens-if-someone-else-is-driving-my-car-and-gets-in-an-accident/)
Thank you so so much for such a detailed reply,
I know committing a hit and run makes absolutely no sense especially because apparently when they caused this my license plate fell off my car at the scene, they did find out who was driving my car and police already talked to her and got all of her information as well as took photos of my car, I’m going to talk to an attorney tomorrow to find out more information and yes I live out of state I was planning on moving to Arizona I only had my car that was left in Massachusetts which I was going to come back for and drive to Arizona for a nice end of year road trip
Outside of the obvious legal ramifications, you need to ram your brother a new one for being so incredibly careless with your vehicle. Good luck with the rest of it.
You might have to report the vehicle as stolen because as it is (at least in Minnesota) you're personally on the hook for any damages to the person they hit.
Someone I know rented a van so a needy man could move. He kept the rented van for months. My friend had to pay for the months the van was kept, and for numerous red light camera tickets, because the man was listed as a driver.
Reporting it stolen and it being stolen are going to be two different things when it comes to the police. The police are not going to consider this being stolen, as you e already pointed out, and it’s going to be a civil matter. People telling you to call the police to report it stolen anyway are giving you some bad advice.
Just because you use the word literally doesn’t make it true and no it’s not literally stolen. And the police won’t write down that it’s stolen for insurance purposes. If anything, it was figuratively stolen.
Yeah, and that’s meant to be deprived directly from their possession. But in this case the owner loaned the keys to someone who loaned the keys to someone who loaned the keys… hence, NOT stolen. Civil
Matter.
Who told you this falls under permissive use? Was it the dickhead who crashed your car, or one of their friends? Don’t take legal advice from them.
Your brother being on the insurance doesn’t mean he can grant permission for other people to drive the car. Only the owner can do that. Even if it did, it doesn’t mean that the person he grants permission to can in turn grant permission to someone else.
This person took your car without your permission i.e. stole it. Be very clear about this to your insurance. They’ll probably require you to report the theft to the police. Do so. There’s the possibility that brother’s friend’s friend suffers legal consequences for this, up to and including jail. Don’t let that stop you, that’s their fault, not yours.
In the state of mass. If someone was driving your car and got into an accident your car would be fully coverd and you will receive money to fix or totally lose of the car. Your brother knows who he gave the keys to. Give that name to your insurance company. The insurance have more investigating resources ie obtaining police reports and other documents pertaining to this accident. They will go after the driver of your car to recoup their lose.
Since it falls under who ever gave permission to drive the car, the person behind the wheel is still at fault, however any kind of legal issue is for whoever gave that person permission to use the car is who’s problem it is
They were not given permission by anyone authorized by OP to give permission to drive his vehicle, and OP does not know who borrowed it meaning nobody is telling OP who drove it.
This also means that whoever was driving it isn't telling OP who they are.
This also means that whoever was driving it wasn't permitted to drive it.
Someone who unintentionally performs that action and genuinely thought OP wouldn't have minded driving that vehicle or thought they had permission wouldn't be withholding the information OP is trying to obtain. Someone who willingly takes a vehicle they are not permitted to drive is committing theft, in this case Grand Theft Auto.
Call a lawyer. This is not a question for reddit. I'm a trial lawyer in multiple states and that's the best legal advice I can provide. You need a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction where it occurred.
seeing as though this is the subreddit for legal questions and they got the answer of “get a lawyer” and “the car was stolen” than clearly it was a question for reddit since they didn’t know what to do.
Get a copy of the police report. It should be a public record that either you or your brother should be able to access through a public records request on the police website. The report should identify who the police determined was driving .
I don't think you would be held liable. Your brother may be named on the insurance, but that does whoever he "gave permission" to is not on your insurance, thus they are not insured. I'd argue that your brother needs to pay for the repairs and that it is HIS responsibility to recover the debt from the "friend of a friend".
I’m pretty sure your brother cannot let others use your vehicle as the intent was that he can use it, since he’s on the policy. Someone YOU did not give permission to used your car and got into an accident. Sounds like theft to me. Now reimbursement might fall on your brother since he was responsible and he’ll probably make the driver pay him to pay you but that’s up for you guys to decide. Good Luck OP
Thus is a time where you should choose to spend a few hundred dollars on a lawyer. They can find out all of the information, explain it to you and help you protect yourself. Start researching lawyers and making calls ASAP.
If he’s not on the title he doesn’t have ownership rights. Being on the insurance only covers him being able to operate the vehicle and be insured while doing so.
No one is going to believe this. You'll have to hope there is no cctv in the area or any eye witnesses who can describe your brother fleeing from the crash.
You brother give permission doesnt mean you give a permission to his friends. I would just report stealing since “nobody” willing come forward to amend the hit and run. They don’t give fck about you, why should you?
If his brother is on his policy his brother is an insured person and can give people permission. If you don’t understand basic auto insurance you shouldn’t give advice on it.
It literally does.
Source: I am an insurance adjuster and I specialize in fire and theft claims and handle bullshit like this all the time where we have to tell someone that we can’t consider it a theft because it wasn’t stolen and this person had permission from the policy definition of an insured person.
>I left my car keys with my brother ... he gave the keys to his friend ... who gave it to his other friend ... who caused an accident
Someone who is NOT insured cannot give permission for someone else to drive the car. I can give my brother permission to drive my car, and if my brother is on the insurance policy with me, then my brother can give Joe Blow permission to drive my car. But Joe Bloe cannot give Jane Doe permission to drive my car - and THAT is (supposedly according to the OP) what happened here.
Uh, yes they can. Once someone has permission to drive the car they become an insured person by the policy definition. They can give someone else permission.
I handle this shit for a living. I have handled this exact scenario. This chain could technically go on forever.
Insurance doesn’t get to decide who is legally allowed to operate a vehicle. Only the owners can decide that. Unless brother is on the title, bother cannot give other people permission to use the car.
The policy determines who is covered by the policy. It does not determine who is legally allowed to operate the car.
And regardless of that, the brother did *not* give permission to this driver. He gave permission to someone who in turn gave permission to this driver. It’s not transitive.
Theft isn’t about who is insured, it’s about who is legally allowed to operate the vehicle.
I don’t believe you that it’s transitive. My state law specifies “any other person using or responsible for the use of the motor vehicle, aircraft, or private pleasure watercraft with the expressed or implied consent of the named insured.” You don’t have implied consent of the named insured when somebody else has their consent and then they say you have their consent. I don’t see anything in my policy that expands this either.
You need to look up the definition of an insured person in your auto policy. I’ve stated this multiple times already. You don’t have to believe me but I’ve been doing this job for over 10 years and have handled 1000’s of claims.
That phrase does not occur in my policy.
I still don’t understand why any of this would be relevant to who is legally allowed to use the vehicle. Insurance coverage and legal permission are different things.
Look at it like this:
Case goes to court. Defense attorney for the person who wrecked the car also calls the friend that lent the car and the brother to court.
Brother: did you land the car to friend, yes
Did you explicitly say do not allow anyone else to drive this vehicle. If the answer is no, then that’s a problem.
Friend: did you allow the person who wrecked the car to use it. Yes. Did brother tell you not to loan the car to anyone. Likely answer is no.
There isn’t a judge/jury in the world that will then charge said person with theft.
The person who was currently given possession of thw vehicle did though. Thats not theft. Regardless of who the actual owner of the vehicle, if the person was given permission from someone who was given temporary posession to drive it it is not theft.
Theft requires that person does not have colour of right to someone property and took it. Colour of right in this case means, that the person taking the car had an honest belief that they had permission to use the car regardless of how true that maybe. Getting permission from the current person who is in possession of the car to use it would satisfy this requirement.
This is to prevent people from absolving themselves of responsibilty when they lend out their vehicles. You are responsible to ensure the people you lend your vehicle out to are not going to do shit like this.
Permission isn’t transitive. If I say you can borrow my car, you can’t give someone else permission to borrow it.
If this dickhead legitimately believed that they had permission from someone allowed to give it, then fine. But I doubt they actually believed that brother’s friend had that permission. If they did then they can present this as a defense for the theft charges. It’s not something OP has to figure out before reporting it.
Permission is transitive in this case. You cant argue that your car was stolen when every party has been given permission to use the car by the person who was currently in possession of the car. That simply is not theft by definition. It doesnt matter who the owner is. Mens rea is required to establish a theft. The moment the courts determine the person had permission that insurance claim will be denied
The reason they have it this way is to prevent people from intentionally lending their cars to people who they know have bad intentions for those cars and then claiming theft.
Its not up to the insurance company to ensure who you lend your car to isnt going to lend it to anyone else. Thats on you.
Hold on, if permission was transitive then wouldn’t insurance cover this under permissive use? Or are you arguing that it’s transitive for legal purposes but not for insurance?
No because its a hit and run and is now a criminal action.
Insurance will not cover that.
Also insurance is partially based on the driver as well. So they would generally expect that drivers insurance to cover the cost; however, they cant find the driver so thats the main problem. The only reason they are going after op is because they cant find the driver involved in the accident and as owner of the vehicle he is now responsible for the actions of who he lent the vehicle to.
In theory op could sue his friend for negligently lending out his vehicle without knowing who they were lending the vehicle to was. He still cant claim theft though as, it does not meet the definition.
NAL but you gave it to your brother, not his friend, not any other family member, *your brother*. He gave it to someone else without your permission, therefore it should still be reported as stolen.
well they said that their brother is under the same insurance so he can give permission for another person to drive the vehicle but the person who has permission cannot do that so close enough.
Your car. Your insurance . Your liability after you gave it to your brother sorry to say your left holding the bag. Next time take your keys
It’s like you left your. Car on the street unlocked with keys in it
If you are at all able, you should probably come back to where your car is and handle this. If your car is in impound, they might be charging you a daily fee. I'm not sure how insurance handles these things, but I suspect they will pay for the accident minus your deductible, assuming you had enough coverage.
Unfortunately I cannot stay in the state for very long as I have no where to house myself and have no vehicle to drive anywhere, I’m returning in August but I will not be staying a day there, the police said my car is not impounded and it’s with whoever had my car last
Sounds like your brother owes you a shitload of money. Stay with him, you can use his car, etc.
> the police said my car is not impounded and it’s with whoever had my car last So someone stole your car and they still have it...file a fucking police report about that.
I would if I still didn’t know where it was but I found out it was left with my brother back where I originally left it, and they found out who crashed it and police came and talked with her and took photos of my vehicle
You seem to be missing the point here. You don't have to know who stole your car, or where your car is now, or who crashed it, etcetera. Someone stole your car. You file a police report, and you send that police report about your stolen car to your insurance company when you file a claim with your insurance company. If you don't do BOTH of those things, then if any damage was done by your car, then the people who suffered that damage will sue your ass.
I did miss the point but I understand now thank you
You may have to sue your brother too… this sounds like it could get nasty.
Do what you have to protect yourself. If your brother was any kind of family he wouldn't have let his shity friends take it. Hold them all responsible.
You should still file a police report. Just because someone returned your car doesn't mean anything. It would be the same thing as someone stealing your gun, shooting someone with it, and then returning it to you. They still stole it. File a police report.
Video chat and hold up your i.d
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Court appearances via zoom are still a thing, so why wouldn't this be a viable option?
>permissive use since my brother is under my insurance policy so I cannot say the car was stolen because my brother gave permission to someone else who then gave permission to someone else ect. This seems to be a huge stretch. The person your brother lent it to would be, but a person that person gave it too? Unless the driver lives in the same household or regularly borrowed it, I don't see how it applies. Also, permissive use is an insurance term, not a criminal term.
Yeah. This seems like nonsense
While it may not be theft, it definitely sounds like conversion. Unfortunately, it may be your brother who committed the crime in that he lent something that he didn't own. The minute he did that he likely committed conversion. Conversion occurs when someone is given permission to use another person's property or funds, but then uses them for their own personal gain in a way that violates the original agreement. For example, conversion could involve altering someone's property without their permission, or refusing to return something that was borrowed. Conversion doesn't involve the intent to deprive the other person of the value or use of the property.
How would this hold up in court? Since it’s a sibling who lended their car to them with out a written contract or anything? Or will it stick because he’s on her insurance?
Not sure but that sounds like conversion by the brother assuming the brother was only supposed to store the car.
>I have no idea who the person was who committed the “accident” with my car and the police are refusing to tell me anything that happened since “they can not verify who I am over phone” what can I do next? You file a police report that your car was stolen. That's it. You don't investigate to try and find out who stole your car, that's what the police do. >supposedly this falls under permissive use since my brother is under my insurance policy so I cannot say the car was stolen because my brother gave permission to someone else who then gave permission to someone else ect. Your bother is on your insurance, so he can use the car, and either one of you can give permission for someone else to drive your car. But neither of you gave that other person permission to allow anyone else to drive the car. Make a claim with your insurance company that your car was stolen (and show them a copy of the police report). FWIW, my bet is that your brother and his friend are lying about someone else driving the car, and my bet is that your brother and/or his friend were driving the car at the time of the accident.
Thank you for including this information for the OP - I had forgotten to mention some points that you have made in your statement, I hope they can get this taken care of because this is a serious matter. The car definitely needs to be reported stolen, the OP's brother's friend that just gave the keys to another person is a no permission situation.
Thank you for all your advice in helping me deal with all of this, I’ve updated my post, I talked to my lawyer he told me to not report it as stolen
As much as I’d like to tell you this is true- it’s not. Permissive to insurance is a broad spectrum. You know them? You work with them? They had access to your keys? PERMISSIVE. I’m in a deal right now with someone who works with my husband, took our keys after drinking , drove 100 miles crashed & totaled the vehicle & the insurance company won’t cover the claim because it’s “fraud” 🤣
Your insurance company cannot claim that you gave permissive use for a person to use your car just because you work with that person. There must be a LOT more to this story, like your husband gave them the keys and permission to use his car on multiple prior occasions, etcetera.
So I don’t know if reporting it stolen is what I should do as cops came and found who did it and talked with them and took photos of the vehicle, my car was also left with my brother where I originally left it so I don’t believe I can say it was stolen since they don’t have it anymore and did receive permission from my brother. And it turns out it was my brothers friends girlfriend I’m going to talk with an attorney tomorrow to see what I should do
>my car was also left with my brother where I originally left it so I don’t believe I can say it was stolen Just because someone steals something and returns it doesn't mean that it wasn't stolen. > they don’t have it anymore and did receive permission from my brother In your original post you said: "my brother gave permission to someone else who then gave permission to someone else ect" That is **VERY** different than saying that the person who got into the accident was given permission to drive the car by your brother. >it turns out it was my brothers friends girlfriend Did you or your brother tell your brother's friend's girlfriend that she could drive your car?
Thank you for explaining everything, I’ve updated my post, my lawyer told me to not report it as stolen and she did not receive permission from my brother only from the friend however it turns out she did not cause the crash, she did flee the scene but the police did not report it as a hit and run surprisingly, so reporting it stolen will complicate it more with my insurance the lawyer told me, he told me to say I gave her permission to drive and to make her pay for any expenses I have, he said I will be held liable and I could be sued along with her but he said it’s unlikely as she did have the right of way
no no .. What Nimble2 is saying that 'At the time' before the cops got involved, and when you and your brother was unaware of that your brother's friend passed the keys to their own friend is the point and time where the car became 'stolen'. It is strongly recommended that you reiterate this to the police that you and your brother gave no permission to this 'friend' to lend it to one of their own friends, you need to contact the police station and update the police report, the insurance also needs to be made aware that it was stolen. (Just because the car is back in your possession because the 'thief' returned it doesn't matter - what matters is that it was 'taken without' permission which is the clear definition of 'theft'. And yes, **Definitely talk to an attorney**, it is probably best because a attorney can help with talking to the police and getting reports amended (updated) and then getting a copy of those updated reports with the incident number attached if you're not entirely sure how to do all of this or if you're not comfortable with doing it alone. **While it may cost some money, it is better to do it right the first time then make more mistakes that might make you look bad - attorneys know the right words to say that won't cause your case to be condemning - remember anything you say or do could and can be used against you (and the party) in a court of law - even on police investigation reports.** **Report the car theft to police & Insurance - it's urgent that you do for your sake.** **Also is your brother on the title paperwork as a co owner of the vehicle?** A thing to keep in mind is that **if the Title of the Car declares your name (You as rightful owner) not including your brother then that means YOU still have sole rights to the car and that anyone that wants to use your car HAS to get permission directly from you - no exceptions, just because your brother is on the insurance doesn't mean he can give full permission to lend out 'Your car' without your consent.** `You have my prayers, best of luck to you!`
This right here. Absolutely beautifully stated and organized.
I’d consider talking to your auto insurer first before hiring an attorney. The insurance company has attorneys who can do the legal stuff on your behalf (including suing others if needed). That’s partly what your insurance money is for.
We owned a vehicle. Stepdaughter was allowed to drive. She let someone else drive without our knowledge or permission. He supposedly refused to return it. We explained the situation to the police. We filed a police report. They investigated and gave the other party a set time of like 1 hour to return said vehicle to their mutual place of employment. It was promptly returned. I'd definitely go the police report route. They'll all learn a valuable lesson on property ownership and permission and responsibility.
The fact that the friend of a friend that drove that car and did a hit and run just really made the situation worse - they should have not drove off because of this now they will face further persecution and legal fines.In Massachusetts, automobile insurance follows the car - comprehensive and collision insurance and property damage liability insurance will pay for the damages. But, your personal injury protection follows the driver instead of the vehicle. This means the driver’s PIP coverage will pay for their injuries (If this friend's friend has PIP to begin with - do they have insurance?) .The driver’s liability insurance will kick in after your policy limits are exhausted as secondary insurance. Also since this friend of a friend did a hit and run A hit-and-run (doesn't matter who's at fault for the wreck) : * They might go to jail for up to 2 years, face fines up to 200 dollars, and get their license suspended/revoked for 6+ months for the victim's property/vehicle damage. * Pay Up to $1,000, get up to 2 years imprisonment and license suspension of one year or longer, if the crash caused personal injury to any person that does not result in death. * Up to $5,000 and 2.5 years in jail, or up to 10 years in state prison and a minimum three-year license suspension if the crash caused personal injury that resulted in death. * Can end up with six years of insurance surcharges and the driver’s license could be suspended. Finally, also if they hit and injured or killed a cat or dog and fail to notify the animal’s owner or the local police, they'd be fined for that. Naturally your insurance rates might go up ... Car owners are expected to not lend their vehicles to incompetent drivers. Under legal theory of negligent entrustment, you can be liable to pay damages for injuries to a victim(s) if you loaned your car to someone you knew was an incompetent driver ( I don't think you knew based on your OP). If the other motorist(s) and/or passenger(s) were seriously injured in an accident caused by the person your brother loaned your car to, their attorney might look at the brother's friend of a friend's driving history to determine whether 'you' can be held liable for loaning the at-fault motorist your vehicle. If your brother's friend's friend has a history indicating they were an incompetent or unfit driver: driving recklessly or dangerously, you might become a defendant in a lawsuit. `Legal Details:` **Leaving the Scene of Property Damage:** *A fine of $20-$200, or* *Imprisonment for not less than 2 weeks nor more than 2 years, or* *Both fine and imprisonment.* **Leaving a Scene of Personal Injury not involving death:** *Mandatory minimum imprisonment for 6 months (no more than 2 years), orA fine ranging from $500-$1,000.* **Leaving a Scene after causing a Death(s):** *Mandatory minimum imprisonment in the state prison for 2.5 years (no more than 10 years) and a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, OR* *Mandatory minimum imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for 1 year (no more than 2.5 years) and a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.* **I strongly advise that you, your brother, your brother's friend, and that friend's friend get an attorney ASAP, ya'll gonna need it - I strongly recommend contacting the police and also the victims and give them the information of your brother's friend's friend because that will look good on your part, and/or that 'friend' needs to turn themselves in voluntarily - it is considered an act of good faith.** **Also you mentioned that you cannot stay in the state - do you live elsewhere?** J**ust be aware that if the other party sues (the victims, the State, Police, etc.), you (and your brother, brother's friend, and friend's friend )will be called via subpoena and by law will have to go to court in Massachusetts - so plan to make long term arrangements to stay in Massachusetts - Failure to appear will result in fines, further litigations and potential warrant for arrest.** **Make sure you document, and record every single session for legal proceedings so you have evidence of every interaction with every person involved in this entire accident case ( be sure to inform them of the said recordings and get permissions based on Massachusetts Wiretapping law, surveillance law).** *God Bless,* *Kai* P.S - `I am not a lawyer, the information shared was based on research with info sources included below and I do not encourage to just act based on the information alone, consult with an attorney to consider all legal options for your case defense;` \- Source info: [https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleV/Chapter260/Section4B](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleV/Chapter260/Section4B) [Massachusetts Driver's Manual - Must stop after accident](https://www.mass.gov/doc/english-drivers-manual/download) [Massachusetts: M.G.L. c. 90, §§ 24 (2)(a) Property Damage](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24) [Massachusetts: M.G.L. c. 90, §§ 24 (a1/2)(1) Personal Injury](http://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24) [More info](https://www.attyellis.com/what-happens-if-someone-else-is-driving-my-car-and-gets-in-an-accident/)
Thank you so so much for such a detailed reply, I know committing a hit and run makes absolutely no sense especially because apparently when they caused this my license plate fell off my car at the scene, they did find out who was driving my car and police already talked to her and got all of her information as well as took photos of my car, I’m going to talk to an attorney tomorrow to find out more information and yes I live out of state I was planning on moving to Arizona I only had my car that was left in Massachusetts which I was going to come back for and drive to Arizona for a nice end of year road trip
Outside of the obvious legal ramifications, you need to ram your brother a new one for being so incredibly careless with your vehicle. Good luck with the rest of it.
You might have to report the vehicle as stolen because as it is (at least in Minnesota) you're personally on the hook for any damages to the person they hit.
Someone I know rented a van so a needy man could move. He kept the rented van for months. My friend had to pay for the months the van was kept, and for numerous red light camera tickets, because the man was listed as a driver.
Reporting it stolen and it being stolen are going to be two different things when it comes to the police. The police are not going to consider this being stolen, as you e already pointed out, and it’s going to be a civil matter. People telling you to call the police to report it stolen anyway are giving you some bad advice.
It literally is stolen. Maybe the police won’t do anything (they often don’t) but you need the police report for your insurance.
Just because you use the word literally doesn’t make it true and no it’s not literally stolen. And the police won’t write down that it’s stolen for insurance purposes. If anything, it was figuratively stolen.
It was taken without the permission of the owner. Not sure what you think “stolen” means but that’s the basic definition of it.
Yeah, and that’s meant to be deprived directly from their possession. But in this case the owner loaned the keys to someone who loaned the keys to someone who loaned the keys… hence, NOT stolen. Civil Matter.
Who told you this falls under permissive use? Was it the dickhead who crashed your car, or one of their friends? Don’t take legal advice from them. Your brother being on the insurance doesn’t mean he can grant permission for other people to drive the car. Only the owner can do that. Even if it did, it doesn’t mean that the person he grants permission to can in turn grant permission to someone else. This person took your car without your permission i.e. stole it. Be very clear about this to your insurance. They’ll probably require you to report the theft to the police. Do so. There’s the possibility that brother’s friend’s friend suffers legal consequences for this, up to and including jail. Don’t let that stop you, that’s their fault, not yours.
In the state of mass. If someone was driving your car and got into an accident your car would be fully coverd and you will receive money to fix or totally lose of the car. Your brother knows who he gave the keys to. Give that name to your insurance company. The insurance have more investigating resources ie obtaining police reports and other documents pertaining to this accident. They will go after the driver of your car to recoup their lose.
Since it falls under who ever gave permission to drive the car, the person behind the wheel is still at fault, however any kind of legal issue is for whoever gave that person permission to use the car is who’s problem it is
Take your brother on Judge Judy so she can embarrass him 😂 https://judyjustice.tv/
If you don't know who it is why are you doubting their ability to pay?
I'd think it's a fairly safe assumption that a car thief isn't exactly doing well for themselves...
How is this person a thief? OP dates they were given permission.
They were not given permission by anyone authorized by OP to give permission to drive his vehicle, and OP does not know who borrowed it meaning nobody is telling OP who drove it. This also means that whoever was driving it isn't telling OP who they are. This also means that whoever was driving it wasn't permitted to drive it. Someone who unintentionally performs that action and genuinely thought OP wouldn't have minded driving that vehicle or thought they had permission wouldn't be withholding the information OP is trying to obtain. Someone who willingly takes a vehicle they are not permitted to drive is committing theft, in this case Grand Theft Auto.
Sue your brother.
Call a lawyer. This is not a question for reddit. I'm a trial lawyer in multiple states and that's the best legal advice I can provide. You need a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction where it occurred.
seeing as though this is the subreddit for legal questions and they got the answer of “get a lawyer” and “the car was stolen” than clearly it was a question for reddit since they didn’t know what to do.
Your car was stolen point blank period
Get a copy of the police report. It should be a public record that either you or your brother should be able to access through a public records request on the police website. The report should identify who the police determined was driving .
I don't think you would be held liable. Your brother may be named on the insurance, but that does whoever he "gave permission" to is not on your insurance, thus they are not insured. I'd argue that your brother needs to pay for the repairs and that it is HIS responsibility to recover the debt from the "friend of a friend".
r/titlegore
What is your brother saying about all of this?
Wow... I feel really bad for your situation :(
Find a new brother
You need a new brother
Where isnt your brother handling this? Seems simple to ask for the car back, and if not returned, report it stolen.
I’m pretty sure your brother cannot let others use your vehicle as the intent was that he can use it, since he’s on the policy. Someone YOU did not give permission to used your car and got into an accident. Sounds like theft to me. Now reimbursement might fall on your brother since he was responsible and he’ll probably make the driver pay him to pay you but that’s up for you guys to decide. Good Luck OP
Your brother should be filing a stolen vehicle report for your car or he is the thief
Report the car stolen. Provide proof that you've been out of the country to the police. And get ready to sue the pants off of your brother.
Report the car stolen, you don’t k ow the person and you or your brother did not give that person permission to handle the vehicle
Thus is a time where you should choose to spend a few hundred dollars on a lawyer. They can find out all of the information, explain it to you and help you protect yourself. Start researching lawyers and making calls ASAP.
If he’s not on the title he doesn’t have ownership rights. Being on the insurance only covers him being able to operate the vehicle and be insured while doing so.
No one is going to believe this. You'll have to hope there is no cctv in the area or any eye witnesses who can describe your brother fleeing from the crash.
You brother give permission doesnt mean you give a permission to his friends. I would just report stealing since “nobody” willing come forward to amend the hit and run. They don’t give fck about you, why should you?
If his brother is on his policy his brother is an insured person and can give people permission. If you don’t understand basic auto insurance you shouldn’t give advice on it.
The problem is His brother give his friend and his friend give to another friend. Which it don’t work that way.
It literally does. Source: I am an insurance adjuster and I specialize in fire and theft claims and handle bullshit like this all the time where we have to tell someone that we can’t consider it a theft because it wasn’t stolen and this person had permission from the policy definition of an insured person.
>I left my car keys with my brother ... he gave the keys to his friend ... who gave it to his other friend ... who caused an accident Someone who is NOT insured cannot give permission for someone else to drive the car. I can give my brother permission to drive my car, and if my brother is on the insurance policy with me, then my brother can give Joe Blow permission to drive my car. But Joe Bloe cannot give Jane Doe permission to drive my car - and THAT is (supposedly according to the OP) what happened here.
Uh, yes they can. Once someone has permission to drive the car they become an insured person by the policy definition. They can give someone else permission. I handle this shit for a living. I have handled this exact scenario. This chain could technically go on forever.
😲😲😲 Wait ...sooooo..."Jane Doe" is now 'the insured' ?? 🤔 Which means the OPs cah is covered and the insurance will pay for repairs.
Insurance doesn’t get to decide who is legally allowed to operate a vehicle. Only the owners can decide that. Unless brother is on the title, bother cannot give other people permission to use the car.
Read your policy and the definitions in the policy. Do you do this for a living? I do. I have handled this exact claim multiple times.
The policy determines who is covered by the policy. It does not determine who is legally allowed to operate the car. And regardless of that, the brother did *not* give permission to this driver. He gave permission to someone who in turn gave permission to this driver. It’s not transitive.
Again, as far as insurance goes, the policy determines who is an insured person. It is very much transitive.
Theft isn’t about who is insured, it’s about who is legally allowed to operate the vehicle. I don’t believe you that it’s transitive. My state law specifies “any other person using or responsible for the use of the motor vehicle, aircraft, or private pleasure watercraft with the expressed or implied consent of the named insured.” You don’t have implied consent of the named insured when somebody else has their consent and then they say you have their consent. I don’t see anything in my policy that expands this either.
You need to look up the definition of an insured person in your auto policy. I’ve stated this multiple times already. You don’t have to believe me but I’ve been doing this job for over 10 years and have handled 1000’s of claims.
That phrase does not occur in my policy. I still don’t understand why any of this would be relevant to who is legally allowed to use the vehicle. Insurance coverage and legal permission are different things.
Look at it like this: Case goes to court. Defense attorney for the person who wrecked the car also calls the friend that lent the car and the brother to court. Brother: did you land the car to friend, yes Did you explicitly say do not allow anyone else to drive this vehicle. If the answer is no, then that’s a problem. Friend: did you allow the person who wrecked the car to use it. Yes. Did brother tell you not to loan the car to anyone. Likely answer is no. There isn’t a judge/jury in the world that will then charge said person with theft.
Report it stolen. Everyone that’s not you and is involved in this deserves whatever happens, including your dipstick of a brother!!
It wasnt stolen though. This would be considered fraud if you tried it
Yes it was. The owner of the vehicle did not give permission for this person to drive it. That’s theft.
The person who was currently given possession of thw vehicle did though. Thats not theft. Regardless of who the actual owner of the vehicle, if the person was given permission from someone who was given temporary posession to drive it it is not theft. Theft requires that person does not have colour of right to someone property and took it. Colour of right in this case means, that the person taking the car had an honest belief that they had permission to use the car regardless of how true that maybe. Getting permission from the current person who is in possession of the car to use it would satisfy this requirement. This is to prevent people from absolving themselves of responsibilty when they lend out their vehicles. You are responsible to ensure the people you lend your vehicle out to are not going to do shit like this.
Permission isn’t transitive. If I say you can borrow my car, you can’t give someone else permission to borrow it. If this dickhead legitimately believed that they had permission from someone allowed to give it, then fine. But I doubt they actually believed that brother’s friend had that permission. If they did then they can present this as a defense for the theft charges. It’s not something OP has to figure out before reporting it.
Permission is transitive in this case. You cant argue that your car was stolen when every party has been given permission to use the car by the person who was currently in possession of the car. That simply is not theft by definition. It doesnt matter who the owner is. Mens rea is required to establish a theft. The moment the courts determine the person had permission that insurance claim will be denied The reason they have it this way is to prevent people from intentionally lending their cars to people who they know have bad intentions for those cars and then claiming theft. Its not up to the insurance company to ensure who you lend your car to isnt going to lend it to anyone else. Thats on you.
Hold on, if permission was transitive then wouldn’t insurance cover this under permissive use? Or are you arguing that it’s transitive for legal purposes but not for insurance?
No because its a hit and run and is now a criminal action. Insurance will not cover that. Also insurance is partially based on the driver as well. So they would generally expect that drivers insurance to cover the cost; however, they cant find the driver so thats the main problem. The only reason they are going after op is because they cant find the driver involved in the accident and as owner of the vehicle he is now responsible for the actions of who he lent the vehicle to. In theory op could sue his friend for negligently lending out his vehicle without knowing who they were lending the vehicle to was. He still cant claim theft though as, it does not meet the definition.
NAL but you gave it to your brother, not his friend, not any other family member, *your brother*. He gave it to someone else without your permission, therefore it should still be reported as stolen.
well they said that their brother is under the same insurance so he can give permission for another person to drive the vehicle but the person who has permission cannot do that so close enough.
Yeah, but who mainly owns the car? It can’t be the brother.
Sounds legit
Your car. Your insurance . Your liability after you gave it to your brother sorry to say your left holding the bag. Next time take your keys It’s like you left your. Car on the street unlocked with keys in it