Geer vs Commerce
The undersigned Arbitrator(s), having been duly appointed in the above-captioned matter and having heard the proof and allegations of the parties, award as follows;
I find for the insured,
Commerce did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the Insured's vehicle was not stolen.
The insured was credible. Her testimony was not discredited. No Evidence of her involvement was introduced. No motive was established for to have vandalized the vehicle. On the contrary, the resulting inconvenience to her showed the unlikely that was. Therefore, the inference was that the vehicle was stolen and then vandalized by unknown persons.
The evidence of Commerce's expert to the effect that forced entry to the vehicle was questionable, and that the ignition had not been tampered with, was not conclusive because further and different testing by Commerce would have established for certain whether the ignition had been abused, or whether a key of some sort had been used. Even then absent a motive the inference would have remained that somehow the vehicle had been stolen.
Stephen C Hicks
Prof Stephen Hicks
( This document was re-typed for better readability. The original copy is available upon request )