I called it insurance fraud, because technically it could be construed as insurance fraud. There is still a near certainty that nothing would ever come from this in a criminal or civil proceeding, but that does not mean that this then is not still a form of insurance fraud. The language of most insurance contracts includes specific language about acting "in good faith," particularly when it comes to the valuation of the item to be insured. This auction was many things, but it certainly was not in good faith.rlomba8204 wrote:
I don't mean any disrespect, but this sounds questionable to me, to say the least.
So, if you are trying to demonstrate the value of the car to your insurer, it would stand to reason that an auction, where the bidders do not know that the auction is not for real, provides an actual value of what other people in the market are willing to pay you for your car and would seemingly provide evidence for your price position by allowing the "market" (i.e., unaffiliated potential purchasers) express their opinion of what the car is worth. And that opinion has real value precisely because in an auction, their money is on the table. It's not hypothetical from their perspective -- they do not know it is not for real when they are bidding.
But to call this "insurance fraud", when no claim has been made upon the insurer, and when no money has changed hands, seems a touch over-dramatic. "Insurance fraud" is a serious claim. I think our seller here, if he or she is guilty of anything, is really just being creative to the point of being a little silly. If the seller is in trouble with anyone here, it's Ebay or whatever auction firm his is with because he is now a deadbeat auctioner.
I placed several caveats in my statement for a reason. I agree that someone is entitled to show a market value for their vehicle, but your feeling that the e-Bay bidders were unaffiliated, is just that, your feeling. While I might not have any proof that the auction was rigged, I do have proof that the auction was a sham. As such I think we both agree that the insurance agency is likely to disregard the auction as means of "proving" value. The odds of that are greatly increased if the insurance agency looks into the auction and finds his comments posted online.
Perhaps I took it to one extreme, but I stand by my characterization. Committing "X" and being held civilly or criminally responsible for "X" are two different things. A person who speeds, but never gets a speeding ticket has still committed the act of speeding. We agree with the essential points here, seeing as how we both agree as to the most likely end result of this, even if we disagree about certain elements and what to call this.