Car Repo'd with Forced Insurance

What is the name of your state? Colorado

Hello,
I have a car loan through my Federal Credit Union. I had let my auto insurance lapse in August, but was provided with a "forced" policy paid through August of '08. My payments are current and have included the extra amount for this insurance as of the first billing for it. I kept it as it was actually LESS expensive than what I was paying through the agent. I received a letter last Thursday (12/27) giving me 7 days to remedy the issue of the forced insurance not being adequate insurance for Colorado. This threw me a little as I had not been informed of this until that letter. This morning (12/29) the repo man showed up at my door and told me he was taking the car due to "Lack of Insurance". I showed him the letter giving me 7 days to remedy the under-insured issue, as well as the "Collateral Protection" Insurance coverage letter from the credit union showing coverage from 08/07-08/08. His response, of course, was that I could contact my credit union on Monday to address these issues, but he was paid only to take the car.
My question is: Can they legally repo my car if insurance is in force, even it is "forced insurance"? And if I have been given 7 days to remedy the situation of "under insurance", can they repo without taking into the time I received their letter? Should I purchase full coverage in advance of Monday for the vehicle and request the "unearned premium" from 01/08-08/08 be refunded? Will they have to pay to have the vehicle returned to me if they are in error?

Thank you in advance for your help. This is very frustrating--especially as I am talking about my 17 year old daughter's vehicle that she uses to get to her apprenticeship program.

The problem with your "forced" insurance is that is it just collateral protection and does not meet the requirements for liability insurance in any state, obviously Colorado included. Collateral protection insurance basically covers the insurance company for their loses in case you either have the car stolen or totaled, but does not alleviate your responsibility to provide insurance as the state requires to you.

For example: If you and I are involved in an accident and you are deemed to be at fault, what insurance do you have (that the state requires you to have) that covers my losses? Am I to eat it and take money out of my household and budget because you irresponsibly let your insurance lapse? I don't think your finance company was in the wrong, in fact, they did the drivers in your state a favor by taking the vehicle off the road.

I'm sure that if you go back and start to abide by the contract that you signed with them and bought a full coverage insurance policy, naming them as loss payee, they will return the vehicle to you, provided you pay the fees incurred with the reposession.

I truly thought it was appropriate coverage!

Really,

I do agree, that if I did not have appropriate coverage, I should not have the vehicle on the road and should be required to purchase said insurance. However, the letter I received from them providing this insurance in that was to insure the vehicle from 08/07-08/08 did not make this clear at all. I thought that I was purchasing the appropriate insurance from them. At any rate, I did receive a letter on 12/26 (or 27) giving me 7 business days to rectify the situation and provide full coverage insurance protection. My plan was to call on Monday (which would have been business day 6 from the day the letter was WRITTEN) and ask what exactly this provided insurance was if not what was required. The letter clearly states that I have 7 business days to provide this before a vehicle surrender would be necessary. Therefore, as Saturday, Sunday, nor Christmas or New Years Day are business days.....my 7th business day was not until 01/02/08. Even if we don't count on Christmas, I still was not past my time. And this, of course, does not take into account that I did not receive this letter untill the 26th (possible the 27th) only the date the letter was written on (12/20/2007).

I now understand the difference between the collateral protection insurance and full coverage, and understand the immediate need to purchase a new policy--this has never been an issue about not being able to afford it, but that the policy they offered me if I didn't renew my other policy was less expensive, and seemed easy to pay for all in one payment. I didn't understand, at the time, nor until today, that the "forced insurance" was not adequate. I didn't receive my first letter telling me this untill December 26th (4 months after said policy was in force).

Thank you for your feed back.