Help, the dealer let someone steal my 2210!!!

hodoms · Feb 1, 2006

I already told everyone that the tractor was financed through JD Financing and I didn't get the insurance because it is covered and will remained covered by my homeowners policy unless they decide to require separate coverage. I signed no work order, all I did was drop the tractor off and left the key in the tractor.

robison · Feb 1, 2006

( ( I am an automobile dealer and I have faced similar situations myself. )

In all due respect sir, your are an "AUTOMOBILE DEALER" with completely Different Insurance Policy Coverages. )

* * * * *

Big R,

Referring to your posts . . .

There is not much difference between the coverages at a car dealership and a tractor dealership, at least not in my state. I actually have licenses to sell boats and tractors too and my insurance covers those things. I don't do it much but I can.

We have garage liability to cover issues with customer cars
We have dealer physical damagey to cover our own inventory
We have overall dealer liability for everything else and we have excess liability on top of that.

If I were the dealer in this case I'd be talking to my insurance company about the facts of the case to determine whose coverage should pay.

As Rayder pointed out, it's really a question of whether my security practices are reasonable for my area and what I do, and my experience with similar losses. Should I have expected this?

I myself have owned a dealership in Massachusetts for 20 years and I've never had a car stolen from my custody. But I've had all sorts of other things . . . I've had trees fall on them in storms, other customers hit them, vandals break into them, and even employees (twice) wreck them on road tests. 50,000 cars and you're going to have some losses but I've never had one stolen . . . We also fix countless cars whose damage is covered by insurance - wrecks and breakins and other damage brought to us for repair . . . anyway, I have long personal experience working with insurance companies on all kinds of claims. Many hundreds, probably thousands, mostly on behalf of our customers. So I feel I've got more experience at this than many folks.

Anyway, if I had the vehicle I'd have taken "reasonable" precautions to secure it. (I guess my record of no thefts says I do that OK now) Having it stolen I'd be discussing the liability situation with my company and if they agreed I did not look responsible I'd speak to the customer's company on his behalf. I'd have the two companies work it out because I know one will end up covering the loss, I just don't know which.

There is almost no situation I can imagine where an insured customer has a vehicle stolen from an insured dealer and there is not coverage from one of the two insurers.

As regards the settlement, which Hodom expressed anxiety about . . . as the dealer I'd be in a good bargaining position with the insurers and I'd be surprised if I could not get a fair settlement.

Which leads to . . . what is fair??

If a one-year-old tractor gets stolen I think "fair" is replacement with another one-year-old tractor of similar condition. If nothing like that could be found I'd try and negotiate the settlement up a bit and discount a new tractor and replace it with new. Given the story he related that does not sound like a tough problem.

Even though I might not make any money on the replacement tractor I would'nt lose much if anything and I'd get considerable goodwill.

Unless we had a lucky break and happened upon a similar used unit I think we'd have to replace with new. Since John Deere 2210s have a high retained book value in Iron Solutions (the book they'll use to judge values) I think that could turn out fine . . . customer gets a new unit and dealer is not out much money either. Everyone wins.

BIG_R_Jr_3 · Feb 2, 2006

* * * * *

Robison ,

Referring to your posts . . .
(
There is not much difference between the coverages at a car dealership and a tractor dealership, at least not in my state.
( )
This is true in regards to a Garage Insurance policy very much alike for the basic minimum required policy by state.
(
We have garage liability to cover issues with customer cars
We have dealer physical damagey to cover our own inventory
We have overall dealer liability for everything else and we have excess liability on top of that.
( )
Right here in your policies listed above is were the coverage for why I feel the Dealers policy should become Primary in this loss. But have you specifically afforded yourself with the proper coverage, to provide in this case ?

"Garage Insurance" Special forms of insurance have been devised to meet the Liability insurance needs of businesses which sell or service automobiles. The Garage Insurance policy provides coverage on most of the hazards that risks of this kind face in the everyday conduct of their business.
These Garage policies are available to any automobile dealer, repair shop, service station, storage garage, and to machinery and implement dealers and repair shops.

"Garage Liability Policy" The Garage Liability policy is essentially a combination of Public Liability and Automobile Liability coverages. Thus, it includes the Premises-Operation hazards, Products and Completed Operations hazards, as well as Medical Payments both of the Public Liability and the Automobile policies.
A Provision is also made under the policy for covering loss by physical damage to his own vehicles or those in his Care, Custody or Control.........(BINGO).........That's my point.
(
If I were the dealer in this case I'd be talking to my insurance company about the facts of the case to determine whose coverage should pay.
( )
Dealers policy should be primary unless coverage was not added or purchased for property of others. Then our indivduals policy would need to be used, unless Dealers is willing pay for his lack of coverages. Or some other agreement is reached mutually......

(
As Rayder pointed out, it's really a question of whether my security practices are reasonable for my area and what I do, and my experience with similar losses. Should I have expected this?
( )
Lets just pretend that you have the most elabrate security system in the world with all the bells and whisles, cameras, etc. and the Tractor is still taken. What then, how is this any different ? It really isn't any different than our current situation. The Dealer spendt alot of money in the security system to prevent such a loss and that is one of his own insurance measures that he took to prevent such losses at his business.
(
I myself have owned a dealership in Massachusetts for 20 years and I've never had a car stolen from my custody. But I've had all sorts of other things . . . I've had trees fall on them in storms, vandals break into them,
( )
In just these items listed above did you the Dealers policy cover these losses or did you handle them through each persons individuals policy ?
(
There is almost no situation I can imagine where an insured customer has a vehicle stolen from an insured dealer and there is not coverage from one of the two insurers.
( )
Of course thats pretty simple, and thats the beautiful thing about Automobile Private Passenger Policy. Everyone remember this "Comprehensive" and "Collision" coverage follows your vehicle no matter where it goes in the U.S.

However if I had an older vehicle and its paid off and I chose not to carry comprehensive and collision and it was taken from your dealership, I personally have no insurance coverage for this loss and I would look to you to either replace my vehicle or settle $$$ with me.
(
As regards the settlement, which Hodom expressed anxiety about . . . as the dealer I'd be in a good bargaining position with the insurers and I'd be surprised if I could not get a fair settlement.

Which leads to . . . what is fair??

If a one-year-old tractor gets stolen I think "fair" is replacement with another one-year-old tractor of similar condition. If nothing like that could be found I'd try and negotiate the settlement up a bit and discount a new tractor and replace it with new. Given the story he related that does not sound like a tough problem.
( )
Spoken like a fair insurance claims adjuster or agent would say. The intent of Insurance is to make you whole again, not one penny short or one penny over, but put you back in the same situation as if it never occurred.
(
Unless we had a lucky break and happened upon a similar used unit I think we'd have to replace with new. Since John Deere 2210s have a high retained book value in Iron Solutions (the book they'll use to judge values) I think that could turn out fine . . . customer gets a new unit and dealer is not out much money either. Everyone wins.
( )
I'm sure Hodoms is looking for this type of solution, wouldn't anyone else.....

robison · Feb 2, 2006

Al, I'll try and answer each point below:

(
* * * * *

( )
Right here in your policies listed above is were the coverage for why I feel the Dealers policy should become Primary in this loss. But have you specifically afforded yourself with the proper coverage, to provide in this case ?

"Garage Insurance" Special forms of insurance have been devised to meet the Liability insurance needs of businesses which sell or service automobiles. The Garage Insurance policy provides coverage on most of the hazards that risks of this kind face in the everyday conduct of their business.
These Garage policies are available to any automobile dealer, repair shop, service station, storage garage, and to machinery and implement dealers and repair shops.

"Garage Liability Policy" The Garage Liability policy is essentially a combination of Public Liability and Automobile Liability coverages. Thus, it includes the Premises-Operation hazards, Products and Completed Operations hazards, as well as Medical Payments both of the Public Liability and the Automobile policies.
A Provision is also made under the policy for covering loss by physical damage to his own vehicles or those in his Care, Custody or Control.........(BINGO).........That's my point.
(

**** OK, in the description above we've established that the policy provides coverage. But we also know the vehicle owner has a policy that provides coverage. The existance of coverage on my part does not automatically mean I should pay.

It still comes does to responsibility.

We are not talking about something the dealer did. It's an unpredictable and uncontrollable act by a third party, a crook. I don't think we have all the facts to decide who should cover this particular loss.

( )
Dealers policy should be primary unless coverage was not added or purchased for property of others. Then our indivduals policy would need to be used, unless Dealers is willing pay for his lack of coverages. Or some other agreement is reached mutually......

***** In Massachusetts the dealer policy is not primary unless the dealer bought direct primary coverage and elects to use it. Otherwise the customer coverage pays, unless the dealer is liable, in which case his policy pays.

That's the "direct primary" option I mention in an earlier post. Fewer than half MA dealers have that, as far as I know.

(

( )
Lets just pretend that you have the most elabrate security system in the world with all the bells and whisles, cameras, etc. and the Tractor is still taken. What then, how is this any different ? It really isn't any different than our current situation. The Dealer spendt alot of money in the security system to prevent such a loss and that is one of his own insurance measures that he took to prevent such losses at his business.
(
I myself have owned a dealership in Massachusetts for 20 years and I've never had a car stolen from my custody. But I've had all sorts of other things . . . I've had trees fall on them in storms, vandals break into them,
( )
In just these items listed above did you the Dealers policy cover these losses or did you handle them through each persons individuals policy ?

*****

It's been a mix.

Wreck a customer car on a test drive . . . once the policy of the car that hit us paid. Another time when it was our fault our policy paid.

Snow fell from the building and crushed a roof during a bad storm . . . act of God, customer insurance paid

Tree crushed car in storm . . . same thing, act of God, customer insurance

Vandals climbed over razor wire barrier, vandalised cars . . . (this has happened 2-3 times) small losses to 8-10 cars - our policy pays all. $7500 attack to one particular car . . . its policy paid, because we took reasonable measures to protect the property.

(
There is almost no situation I can imagine where an insured customer has a vehicle stolen from an insured dealer and there is not coverage from one of the two insurers.
( )
Of course thats pretty simple, and thats the beautiful thing about Automobile Private Passenger Policy. Everyone remember this "Comprehensive" and "Collision" coverage follows your vehicle no matter where it goes in the U.S.

However if I had an older vehicle and its paid off and I chose not to carry comprehensive and collision and it was taken from your dealership, I personally have no insurance coverage for this loss and I would look to you to either replace my vehicle or settle $$$ with me.

**** If you had no insurance I would of course cover you from my policy. That's an obvious customer relations issue. But if you did have insurance I would be aware of who really had the liability case by case and act accordingly to keep my own claims experience as favorable as I could.

(
As regards the settlement, which Hodom expressed anxiety about . . . as the dealer I'd be in a good bargaining position with the insurers and I'd be surprised if I could not get a fair settlement.

Which leads to . . . what is fair??

If a one-year-old tractor gets stolen I think "fair" is replacement with another one-year-old tractor of similar condition. If nothing like that could be found I'd try and negotiate the settlement up a bit and discount a new tractor and replace it with new. Given the story he related that does not sound like a tough problem.
( )
Spoken like a fair insurance claims adjuster or agent would say. The intent of Insurance is to make you whole again, not one penny short or one penny over, but put you back in the same situation as if it never occurred.

****** I sound more like an adjuster because I've had training in this, I write articles for trade publications on how to manage issues like this, and I participate in teaching seminars on this sort of thing.

And I'm a dealer myself who has personally addressed issues like you mention.

And I will also say that in my case every single one has been satisfactorily resolved without the intervention of attorneys or the courts. Again, from a customer relations point, the dealer has failed if it comes to that.

)

BIG_R_Jr_3 · Feb 2, 2006

robison, heres my answers to you:

**********

But have you specifically afforded yourself with the proper coverage, to provide in this case ?

"Garage Liability Policy" The Garage Liability policy is essentially a combination of Public Liability and Automobile Liability coverages. Thus, it includes the Premises-Operation hazards, Products and Completed Operations hazards, as well as Medical Payments both of the Public Liability and the Automobile policies.

A Provision is also made under the policy for covering loss by physical damage to his own vehicles or those in his Care, Custody or Control.........(BINGO).........That's my point.
(
**** OK, in the description above we've established that the policy provides coverage. But we also know the vehicle owner has a policy that provides coverage. The existance of coverage on my part does not automatically mean I should pay.
( )
We haven't established coverage yet in your policy unless you the dealer has elected to purchase the mentioned provision affording coverage of your own and property of others while in your care, custody, and control..... this coverage is not automatic in the basic Insurance policy, would need to be added.
(
It still comes does to responsibility.
( )
The word responsibility would not be the correct word, its to broad in its meanings and not specific enough. The correct term use by all Insurance and The Law of the Land is "Legally Liable".

It is here where I belieive the hold case should be determine, as you to agree with me (who's responsibility). So how do we determine who's legally liable, and to what extent. There are many ways this could go (90% / 10%), (50% / 50%) but in the end I would be willing to say the Dealer should bear his part of this loss.

(
We are not talking about something the dealer did. It's an unpredictable and uncontrollable act by a third party, a crook. I don't think we have all the facts to decide who should cover this particular loss. ( )

No we don't have all the facts, however the facts that we do know is that the event took place at the Dealer's Premises and that alone is big.
(

***** In Massachusetts the dealer policy is not primary unless the dealer bought direct primary coverage and elects to use it. Otherwise the customer coverage pays, unless the dealer is liable, in which case his policy pays. ( )

I want you to take this in the best possible way, no knock to the great state of Massachusetts. But it is one of the most complex rules of laws governing a state in almost all of the union. Many Insurers have diffuculty in writing & settleing claims due to the many different laws & lawyers.

No knock against lawyers either, my wife is one and has one of the most respected firms in all of South Florida.

(
****** I sound more like an adjuster because I've had training in this, I write articles for trade publications on how to manage issues like this, and I participate in teaching seminars on this sort of thing. ( )

I'm not trying to pick on you and I admire the work you mention here that you have done. However the fact is sir, your not an authority on Insurance Matters nor in the areas of of Insurance Coverages and how they work. If you were you would have completed all the necessary education and taken all the needed test requirements in your state to become licensed for that specific insurance license. It sounds to me that you are a Good Business man and one good manager of your business affairs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect yours. I'm sure if You were the dealer and I was the insurance company we would have already settled this case to the favor of everyone invovled........

NewToy · Feb 2, 2006

I read this post carefully and still don't understand what is going on other than a fellow TBN'er got his tractor stolen. I hope he can get back "whole" again. Sounds to me the dealer had inadequate security if he was depending on a cattle gate to secure the fellows tractor. Cattle gates are for securing cattle, not tractors.

John

Rogator · Feb 2, 2006

My local dealer has a secured compound for all customer small equipment. That compound is inside a 15 acre yard that has chain link fence surrounding it with gates that are locked at night. He informed me that their insurance cover all equipment in the yard new, used or customers. Cattle fences are for keeping cattle in NOT thieves out.

andrewj · Feb 2, 2006

let me understand this - the dealer took responsibility for a high dollar machine and secured it...with a cattle gate?

insurance is in the backseat right now. the questionis who has to pay, dealer or owner. so you boys can argue about which policy is primary, etc., but the answer to who has to pay the dealer or the owner, will be answered by the state law of bailment in the state of the theft. If the state law says dealer was bailee, then dealer has to pay. In that scenario the dealer will be crying for his insurance to be "primary"!

rambler · Feb 3, 2006

( I am an automobile dealer and I have faced similar situations myself.

The dealer is only responsible for your tractor if he was negligent in caring for your tractor. If he left the key in it, out by the road . . . it may be his fault.

If, on the other hand, it was locked in a storage area and thieves cut the lock and dragged it and three others away . . . how can he control that?

As dealers we are responsible for taking reasonable care of equipment entrusted to us by our customers. We are not responsible for every random act of theft or vandalism.

I hope this makes the situation a little clearer. There is no set answer. It depends upon the circumstances. )

In the same vein then, if someone buys a tractor or car on installments, and it is stolen - he can stop making payments on it because it wasn't his fault it was stolen. The dealer will just have to eat the loss, as it wasn't the owner's fault.

Bet _that_ has a different answer from you........

Dealers generally require insurance on such losses to protect themselves from such during the payment period. Often part of the financing package, at a good hefty extra expense. So, titfortat, if the dealer has possesion of it, it's _his_ nickle at risk,and if he failed to keep insurance on such losses, then he is on the hook for the bill.

However, what should happen here is the person's homeowner insurance settles it, and then collects from the dealer or the dealer's insurance co. Ultimately as the dealer had possesion of it, it is his responsibility for the loss - through his insurance co.

Your thoughts just totally fail all logic on this.

Don't mean to sound gruff, just keeping message short - there are _many_ contributing issues & so forth as you said, I'll agree with that part.

--->Paul

hodoms · Feb 9, 2006

I just talked to the dealer today he said that the insurance company has agreed to allow him to give me a 2210 in very good shape on his lot with 50 hours on it. I ask how or if JD financing would go along with this trade. He said he doesn't know if they would go along with it but he will call them and ask. I will gladly take a tractor with 22 less hours on it, in as good as shape as my old one was, because it would be under 3.9% financing (like my old 2210 was) instead of new at 5.9% financing and I would own it in 4 years instead or 5 years.