I think its ok to ask questions in a quest to find the truth. It is even ok to voice suspicion or be skeptical. I personally don't know Tony and whether he committed fraud or not will have absolutely no impact on my life. What bothers me is the lack of civility. I believe people should not hide behind the internet while slinging accusations at another member. The tone and content of many of the posts goes beyond suspicion and is accusatory. That is inappropriate, IMHO, based on the sheer lack of evidence available.
I'm not making any judgement to Tony by stating this, but I am simply lighting the subject a little so people can see the difference. situation a: Car is in a loss on the highway where the driver slides into a ditch (regardless of if they lost control on ice, a solo loss is a fault loss). Collision coverage applies for this and this is a FAULT loss and rates will be impacted by such a loss. situation b: Car is stolen, damaged, recovered. This is a comprehensive loss and is not considered a fault loss and insurance rates would not be affected by most insurance carriers, and if they were affected it would be very minor when compared to a fault collision type loss as in situation a.
I agree if you're going to accuse someone without proof, that's over the line. But, out of 14 pages, I don't see "a lot" of accusations. I see some questioning for sure. A few, yes, but "a lot" of accusations is quite an exaggeration IMO. Questioning and accusing are two completely different things. Judges ask questions all the time. There's nothing wrong in looking beyond the face value of what's being put in front of you. So, to say no one should "judge" someone else here is opening yourself to being nothing short of naive. Yes, a judge should listen to all the facts. But, questioning the integrity of the judge just because he has questions about the facts in the case is just as bad as accusing someone without proof.
I think bdelp is spot on, I think very little to discus at this point. I haven't even talked to Tony, but I think it will play out like... 1) Dallas PD doesn't give a damn. 2) Tony will get his 348 repaired, my guess out of pocket, but he may go the insurance route and they may just pay. 3) Odds are something else will happen in next 12 months.
He posted the frozen muddy pictures in the first travel thread, no apparent damage to the car...not something you'd do if "planning" to mislead or even file a claim.....
Insurance will pay either way. Lost control/stolen whatever. The car will be fixed so we can all be happy.
I don't know about Tony348 being happy...he wants a "perfect" 348........ He could have easily approved 'used parts" reconstruction of the FIRST car, IMO...it was just smacked hard... We know Ferraris are ALL TOO EASY to "total" at the parts window, but could be easily repaired given the internet availablity of good used parts.... There was a Salvage Yard here who had a sticker: "Your car is running on used parts ALREADY"
I tend to disagree, and I see a lot of them. The good ones are congenial, outgoing, and likeable. They put themselves out there, and act like your best friend. Thats why people give them their money (in the cases I see). In this case, you have the ferrari enthusiast with tons of love for his car. What would expect such a person do? Freak out and post on his favorite message forum as soon as he found out with full specs asking for help. What would I do if I was guilty? make a thread about it and make it seem like I was super concerned. If the car was gone, I certainly wouldn't be making threads with pics of my car all iced up on my latest trip. I wouldn't even want to see pics of it because I'd be so upset (if I cared about my cars like that, which I don't). The whole situation seems sketchy. To me, and I don't know tony or anyone else, it seems like someone who got into an accident, realized that his insurance would skyrocket or he would be dropped, hatched a little scheme to prevent this from happening, but made a few errors here and there...which astute people here have picked up on. maybe thats the case and maybe its not, but the information presented here does not look good for Tony.
depends. Could have been a blown motor or damaged transmission that you can't see. also, the dirty/muddy pictures don't show much of anything, damaged or not. finally, he may have posted these prior to thinking of this idea.
My old Body Shop used to make Galveston Taxis out of the Sheriff's Department salvage sales.... "We'll take the FRONT half of this one, and weld it up to the BACK half of that one, over there......
He's totally destroyed a Rolls Royce, the FIRST 348 before he could even plate and title it.., and now this potential 'claim' for the second 348 theft. He's all but uninsurable at this point, one would think......he posted a thread about his rates too!
Good point. Besides, if I am already in a "high risk" category (due to previous high payout claims) in the eyes of my insurance company, wouldn't another claim of Situation A type put me in danger of being dropped?? So to prevent from being dropped and/or face another subsequent rate hike, wouldn't it be in my best interest to "transfer" () damages my car had sustained from Situation A to Situation B??
I just found this thread & skimmed though it. For what it's worth Tony, sorry to hear this happen to you. Dammit, I was wondering why the thread viewing count was climbing so high. http://jalopnik.com/5736837/ferrari-forum-turns-on-member-with-stolen-car
Just got home from work. I spent most of the day thinking about this thread and how suspicious the world is now, myself included. Hope we are not pulling a Lord Of The Flies on Tony... Damn Occums Razor...
I suppose the moral to this story is: be careful what you post on the internet, because it could end up getting posted on the internet.
As a defense guy for auto insurance an company who has seen the front line of many bad faith lawsuits, I can tell you this will be paid. Insurance companies are mortified by first party bad faith suits so in many cases, losses are either overpaid or losses which undoubtedly should not be paid are in fact paid. As I said before, insurance carriers insure stupidity daily. A stolen car with the keys in it is still a stolen car. Other countries may differ in their handling, but I do not know a state in this country which would allow denial of coverage due to that sort of mistake.
