Home theft

[Gob]

Thieves have stolen a 10-tonne mobile home, leaving the victim homeless.



The £30,000 home was taken from a haulage yard in Devon while repairs were carried out ahead of its owner, Sonia McColl, moving to the county.
Mrs McColl, 70, who is now staying with friends, said she was "totally devastated" and "numb" and her home was not insured when it was stolen.
Police said the 40ft (12m) long home was taken by thieves who "knew what they were doing".

More on the mobile home theft, and other stories from across Devon and Cornwall.
Mrs McColl had been moving from a mobile home park where she had lived with her late husband.

She had bought a second-hand mobile home to move into at a new park and it was undergoing work at the haulage yard in Willand Road, Cullompton, when it was taken at some time between 18:00 GMT on 22 November and 06:00 on 23 November.
She said she was contacted on 23 November by a firm due to collect her home to say it was not there.

[Scooter]

her home was not insured when it was stolen

Idiot, no sympathy.

[datsunaholic]

Sometimes you can't get insurance. I can't. I had 5 insurance agents come out to try and get just simple fire+liability, and they won't insure my HOUSE unless I either demolish or replace the roof on my barn. A barn roof that the replacement estimates I got exceed the value of my house. The roof replacement costs exceed the replacement value of the entire BARN.

I couldn't get insurance on my prior house either. It needed repairs, but they wouldn't insure it unless I had a licensed contractor doing the repairs. Again, all I wanted was fire+liability, but they scoffed because the roof had moss and the siding was discolored.

[Scooter]

I'm trying to imagine what circumstances beyond their control would have precluded having a mobile home insured for theft.



















thinking



















thinking



















thinking



















thinking



















thinking



















Nah, can't think of any. So I'm back to:

Idiot, no sympathy.

[rubato]

her home was not insured when it was stolen

Idiot, no sympathy.

Interesting moral theory. Someone of reduced mental ability, education, or judgement deserves what they get when the wolves show up?

That must be some special "lawyer morals" they teach you.

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

(1) I'm not a lawyer.

(2) I see no evidence of reduced mental ability or education. I do see an appalling lack of judgment in holding an expensive asset without bothering to get it insured. That doesn't mean I condone theft. It means I'm not going to waste tears for idiots who suffer al loss because they don't bother to insure valuable assets, just as I wouldn't waste tears for someone whose vehicle was stolen because he/she left it unlocked with the engine running and the keys in the ignition.

[Gob]

Mrs McColl said the home was insured while it was in place at a mobile home park and while in transport but not while having the repairs carried out at the haulage yard.

[Scooter]

So they cancelled or allowed their previous insurance to lapse after moving it from its old location. Magnifies their idiocy because they recognized the need for insurance and let it become uninsured.

[Bicycle Bill]

Mrs McColl said the home was insured while it was in place at a mobile home park and while in transport but not while having the repairs carried out at the haulage yard.

So it must have been a clause in the policy that caused the non-coverage — although since the mobile home was 'at the haulage yard' rather than her new homesite one might be able to argue that it was still in the hands of the movers and technically still 'in transport'.

-"BB"-

[Jarlaxle]

I wonder if she didn't realize until after the fact that insurance didn't cover it at the repair yard.

[Gob]

"I looked for another park home and found a used one in Nuneaton. I went up there and saw it, then I bought it and arranged for transporters to bring it down here.

"There were a lot of hiccups on the way, and it was transferred to a transporter that was unknown to me. They said they couldn't deliver it when they arrived in Devon because the drive wasn't quite adequate, so they took it away to the yard in Cullompton.

"It was there for the past two weeks while everything was prepared here. Shortly before they were due to bring it back they pulled out of their contract which they had been paid for and said I would have to get another haulier to pick it up.

"I found another haulier to help me, which would have been Saturday. The hauliers were contacted on Monday or Tuesday to say the new hauliers were coming to collect it then apparently on the early hours on Thursday morning it disappeared from the yard.

She added: "I tried to insure it but I couldn't. It was insured in transit, but it wasn't insured when it was in the yard.

"The haulier was paid to do a job and they didn't complete that job, they sub contracted it to other people and pulled out the contract.

"It was in their yard, they said it was secure but obviously it wasn't.

"I believe they had a duty of care and they are negligent, as far as I'm concerned.

"At the end of the day they had my home and they were supposed to be delivering it to me but they pulled out of that contract.

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-new ... ter-850928

[Big RR]

I think Jarl might have the answer there--the policy didn't cover the home when it was moved or being stored temporarily, and she didn't realize it; surely an oversight on her part, but then most people can't really read and understand policies. And while I don't know the law here, it does appear it was in the care of the mover at the "haulage yard" so they should have some responsibility for the theft , although I'm certain their contract contained enough fine print to eliminate any and all liability (not that it will necessarily stand up in court).

Look at it this way, imagine you had a car (with theft insurance) which was in an accident and towed to a repair yard and stolen; unknown to you, your policy said they are not responsible for losses occurring when the car is off the road (as it would be because of the accident, and the repair yard says they have no responsibility for the car left with them under the contract. It wouldn't surprise me if anyone, even me, could wind up in the same situation.

[Bicycle Bill]

After reading Gob's link above this does not sound like the kind of 'mobile home' most Americans think of when they hear the term — the 14' x 70' units (or 'double-wides', where two 12- or 14-foot wide halves are united onsite to make a whole) that must be hauled into place behind a semi-tractor, have their wheels removed, and then spends the rest of its lifetime mounted on some sort of permanent foundation.

Ms. McColl's home sounds more like what are known, at least in my area, as 'park model' homes or RVs (recreational vehicles); smaller than the 14x70 behemoths I alluded to above and intended for semi-permanent long-term siting at a campground — a more upscale and deluxe version of those 30-foot fifth-wheel 'camping' trailers that people use nowadays when they want to head for the Great Outdoors and 'get away from it all' but still can't bear to be without their air conditioning, their satellite dish connected to the flat-screen HD TV, their internet connection, or their comfy heated toilet seat — which can be more easily hooked up and hauled away.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

Although I am British, I don't know enough UK law - lived in the US too long - but as others have said, I assume that the hauler / repairer should have the relevant insurance or at least responsibility.

Having said that, collecting is a different matter. The only time I have ever taken someone to court I won the case pretty easily and was awarded $5000-ish in small claims. (Window replacement issue.) But the contractor went bankrupt and we ended up with less than $50 paid out over a couple of years. He of course continued to live in his big house and started another similar business shortly after declaring bankruptcy. I'm guessing he thinks Trump is a genius.

[rubato]

I think in the US the person who physically possesses property belonging ton another has a duty of care which should include insurance as well as taking reasonable precautions to keep it safe. If I leave my watch at the jewelers to be repaired and it is stolen they have to make it good.

Liability
No matter how a bailment arises, the bailee will incur liability in the taking of a bailment in some cases insuring the goods. Different jurisdictions maintain different standards of care.

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

From my limited recall of bailment law, for a bailment that is for the benefit of both parties, as in the present case, the bailee must exercise only "ordinary diligence" to protect the property from loss or damage, e.g. the premises should be reasonably secured but the bailee is not required to install laser-guided machine guns or attack dogs to deter burglars. IIRC, in most jurisdictions conspicuous signage disclaiming liability for loss or damage will protect the bailee except in cases of gross negligence.

[Econoline]

From the article Gob quoted and linked, it appears that the owner did make sure it was insured while in transit and assumed that "in transit" meant "from the time it leaves Point A to the time it arrives at Point B" and only found out afterward that the insurance company disagreed and didn't want to pay. (As some insurance companies are wont to do, on occasion. Don't get me started on that.)

That said, it seems to me that the owner (or insurer) of the yard where the trailer was taken for storage should be held liable: "It was in their yard, they said it was secure but obviously it wasn't. I believe they had a duty of care and they are negligent, as far as I'm concerned." Or, as rubato said,

the person who physically possesses property belonging to another has a duty of care which should include insurance as well as taking reasonable precautions to keep it safe. If I leave my watch at the jewelers to be repaired and it is stolen they have to make it good.

[Scooter]

Except that he is putting forward two contradictory constructions of liability. "Taking reasonable precautions" sounds like ordinary diligence (and no one has proffered any evidence that such precautions were lacking). "If..it is stolen they have to make it good" is strict liability, which to my understanding is never the standard that is applied in a bailment, even one that is to the sole benefit of the bailee.

[MGMcAnick]

We have a state elected person here called an insurance commissioner. Remember Kathleen Sebelius who became President Obama's HHR secretary? She held the insurance commissioner's job before being elected governor. (I miss those days.)

If there is such a person there, she should contact them. I think the commissioner, or whatever title they use, might side with her.

[rubato]

(and no one has proffered any evidence that such precautions were lacking). .. " .

Or present. It would have been trivial to protect a 10-ton object from being stolen so easily. I would suspect an inside job, an employee or owner directly involved with the theft.


yrs,
rubato