Key Of the Proper Type

Key of the Proper Type Syndrome

What is wrong with this picture? In court, the expert swears to tell the truth, the whole truth so help him God.

The whole truth is not being told here, either do to deliberate deception or incompetence. Bottom line, there is a severe disadvantage for the insured who is blanketed with the label as committing insurance fraud, whether he/she did or not.

In essence, in many of these situations, it is fraud on the part of the experts or ignorance. Either way, insureds lives are being damaged because of false claims from auto manufacturers as to the effectiveness of their so-called anti- theft systems as well as the locksmiths that regurgitate as to how these systems are designed to operate.

Locksmiths make keys and service locks and this knowledge in no way qualifies them to make conclusions on auto theft they cannot support.

In the case of "proper" key, what does this mean? It means the lock was not picked. (Thieves generally don't pick locks because of time). Locksmiths pick locks because they have permission and time.

"Proper" key means the lock was not forced or tampered with. This only means there was no internal damage to the lock. Take a GM with PASSLOCK Anti-theft which operates only on the premise, in which the computer has to see the rotation of the lock. The ignition can in fact be force rotated without observing any damage to the tumblers. It is a very sloppy lock, in which keys not cut for the lock will operate it.

With age, a correctly cut key is not even needed to operate the ignition locks. Remember locksmiths are never called out for this problem because the lock is not broken. Most good locksmiths are aware that these locks have lots of slop in them.

If the lock can be rotated in anyway, the engine will start with this junk anti-theft system.

GM used this on all trucks and SUVs from 1998-2006 including the Escalade and Hummer! Many of their car lines were equipped with PASSLOCK from 1995 to 2005.

The definition of "proper" key then is quite vague and yet is used as an absolute to support the locksmith's hocus pocus process. What if the car was towed? The locksmiths opinion means nothing there either.

Look, I have no problem if facts can be proven to support the denial of the claim, and charging someone with insurance fraud. Insurance companies don't have to meet that standard and there are many insureds suffering here!!!

We have criminal cases right now, in which in our opinion based on our extensive training, background and experience do not come close to "beyond any reasonable doubt" and yet prosecutors go with it anyway!

They rely on their star witness ("forensic" locksmith testifying about the lock.

It does not seem to matter that the vehicle's computer and anti-theft system were never interrogated for effectiveness (can't even be done on total burn cars when the computer is destroyed by fire). There is almost never any interrogation of the computer to determine how many keys are programmed to operate the vehicle (This is very important on used cars and repossessions). after market remote start systems are almost never considered, in which the engine can be started from a distance with no key in the ignition. This option bypasses the factory security system totally. (On used cars, the owner may not even know if such a unit was installed, if the dealer or repo guy, never had the key fob for it).

When applying forensics, it is the use of the scientific method. The scientific method requires the elimination of all known hypotheses (theories), before providing a conclusion based on scientific certainty.

Locksmiths are not auto technicians. They do not understand alarm systems (Factory or aftermarket). They do not know how to diagnose and repair anti-theft systems.

They do not work with electronics. They do not install alarms on vehicles. They do not install remote start units.

We say that not, to discredit them, but to put things into perspective here when they are making conclusions that they cannot support. A man must know his limitations!

The repair of thousands of theft recoveries is very germane because this is how one would learn how a thief steals vehicles, instead of a locksmith using a convoluted idea of how he as a locksmith would break into a vehicle (assuming the vehicle even locked if there was no RF interference when the insured was pushing the lock button on his key fob).

A locksmith may state that the vehicle was not missing the proper parts to be a professional theft. First, without having repaired thousands of theft recoveries, how would he have a clue as to what a thief would take? Then there is the definition of "professional" that we won't get into.

A locksmith may find the transmission shifter in the passenger compartment of the vehicle is locked. Almost never do they check the linkage under the car to see if the transmission is in fact in park.

Now, we have gone into variables here about the total picture of the reported stolen vehicle, and yet the lawyers and the courts listen to one thing-testimony of the condition of the ignition lock.

This is why we are saying: When giving sworn testimony in deposition or in trial, they swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help you God. Well, they are not telling the whole truth either because of deception or ignorance. It really does not matter, because in essence they swore to do something they are not doing!

In these scenarios I once stated innocent insureds are getting the shaft here when their anti-theft equipped vehicles are stolen, their car is stolen and the insurance company denies the theft claim.

The question was: How can we claim they are innocent? We don't make that determination. The judge or jury does, however so many people are hell bent that every one of these claims are fraud, because of their ignorance into believing that these vehicles are unstealable.

We now hope we have just put a small amount of common sense, as to why testimony on the lock alone, with the assumption that the anti-theft system functioned and assuming proper key means all keys were accounted for were correctly cut, that must have been the insureds.

We wonder what that forensic locksmith would do if his car was stolen and his theft claim denied. Maybe he would understand the gravity of his testimony and how it can devastate insureds.

Yes there are many who commit insurance fraud, and they should go to jail.

You guys in Chicago, Ohio, California, Vegas, Phoenix and Indianapolis, that think you are Professional Forensic Analysts with your totally biased conclusions on the lock only, look out, we will see you in court!