Withholding insurance information....illegal?

[11BSkunion]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX

I had two guns stolen from a friends house(Im pretty sure the "friend" did it). They where locked in a safe, within his house. He will not give me his homeowners insurance information so that i could file a claim to cover my losses. He said that his insurance is not an optoin for me. Is this illegal or not? Also can anyone tell me what part of TX law states that since my guns where in his safe at his residence if he is responsible for everything in the safe? Thanks

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You can sue him, if you feel you have evidence. He is free to utilize or not utilize his insurance.

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX

I had two guns stolen from a friends house(Im pretty sure the "friend" did it). They where locked in a safe, within his house. He will not give me his homeowners insurance information so that i could file a claim to cover my losses. He said that his insurance is not an optoin for me. Is this illegal or not? Also can anyone tell me what part of TX law states that since my guns where in his safe at his residence if he is responsible for everything in the safe? Thanks

Your claim is against your friend. Sue him. He can choose to have his insurance company defend him if he so chooses.

 

[tranquility]

You are not a party to his insurance coverage and have no "right" to the information or even if he is covered. If you sue him, they may indemnify and defend him and you may find out who they are then. He is not responsible for everything in his safe. I assume you gave him the firearms to hold for some reason. This is called a bailment. Because he did not return them to you, he MAY be responsible. It would depend on why you gave him the firearms to hold and what happened to them.

 

[11BSkunion]

You are not a party to his insurance coverage and have no "right" to the information or even if he is covered. If you sue him, they may indemnify and defend him and you may find out who they are then. He is not responsible for everything in his safe. I assume you gave him the firearms to hold for some reason. This is called a bailment. Because he did not return them to you, he MAY be responsible. It would depend on why you gave him the firearms to hold and what happened to them.

I live on a military installation in the barracks, he's married and lives offpost. I asked if I could store my firearms within his safe, he said yes i could. Then they come up missing and he says he dosnt know what happen to them.

Can anyone give me a link that shows anything about who would be responsible. I was told my JAG that he had to have a list of what was in the safe, he didnt have a list and that since its his safe, within his residence that he is responsible. I have not yet asked JAG about showing me that in black and white im just trying to do a little research on my own. Thanks

 

[Antigone*]

I live on a military installation in the barracks, he's married and lives offpost. I asked if I could store my firearms within his safe, he said yes i could. Then they come up missing and he says he dosnt know what happen to them.

Can anyone give me a link that shows anything about who would be responsible. I was told my JAG that he had to have a list of what was in the safe, he didnt have a list and that since its his safe, within his residence that he is responsible. I have not yet asked JAG about showing me that in black and white im just trying to do a little research on my own. Thanks

Your legal remedy is to sue him in small claims court. He doesn't have to provide you with anything, period.

 

[tranquility]

I live on a military installation in the barracks, he's married and lives offpost. I asked if I could store my firearms within his safe, he said yes i could. Then they come up missing and he says he dosnt know what happen to them.

Can anyone give me a link that shows anything about who would be responsible. I was told my JAG that he had to have a list of what was in the safe, he didnt have a list and that since its his safe, within his residence that he is responsible. I have not yet asked JAG about showing me that in black and white im just trying to do a little research on my own. Thanks

Then the bailment was for your benefit in that he was doing you a favor and did not get anything in return. A case that discusses bailment is:
Buchanan v. Byrd, 519 SW 2d 841 - Tex: Supreme Court 1975
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3471891586204904291]

Remember the duty of care in that case would be higher than yours because the bailment was for pay. Follow the links in the areas you think relevant too. At the very least, once you claim they were not returned, he has the duty to explain why.

 

[11BSkunion]

Then the bailment was for your benefit in that he was doing you a favor and did not get anything in return. A case that discusses bailment is:
Buchanan v. Byrd, 519 SW 2d 841 - Tex: Supreme Court 1975
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3471891586204904291]

Remember the duty of care in that case would be higher than yours because the bailment was for pay. Follow the links in the areas you think relevant too. At the very least, once you claim they were not returned, he has the duty to explain why.

Thank you tranquility, I now somewhat understand the bailment. But since in my case the bailment was for my benefit, what does that mean in court? Thanks

 

[tranquility]

It means his duty is less. How much less? It depends. Some states say slight care, but some Texas cases seem to not differentiate among the different types of bailment and just use negligence as the standard. It doesn't really make any difference because if it really, really was stolen from his locked safe, he'll probably win. If it wasn't, he'll probably lose. What the court believes the facts to be is all a matter of what it believes after the evidence is given.

Was there a police report? If not, I'd say you have a pretty good case.

 

[11BSkunion]

It means his duty is less. How much less? It depends. Some states say slight care, but some Texas cases seem to not differentiate among the different types of bailment and just use negligence as the standard. It doesn't really make any difference because if it really, really was stolen from his locked safe, he'll probably win. If it wasn't, he'll probably lose. What the court believes the facts to be is all a matter of what it believes after the evidence is given.

Was there a police report? If not, I'd say you have a pretty good case.

Ok now I understand it! Thanks! Only thing is, only two people have the combo to the safe, him and me. and there was no signs of forced entry so i guess i'll wait and see what happens and ill report back!

There is a police report....did you mean to say that if there "was" instead of not? haha that confuses me a little.

 

[aldaron]

Report them stolen with serial#s then he'll have some explaining to do to the police.

 

[tranquility]

Ok now I understand it! Thanks! Only thing is, only two people have the combo to the safe, him and me. and there was no signs of forced entry so i guess i'll wait and see what happens and ill report back!

There is a police report....did you mean to say that if there "was" instead of not? haha that confuses me a little.

If there was a police report, I'd be more likely to believe a theft from a locked safe. If not, I'd be less likely to believe. Not that it would be determative, just that people don't tend to commit a crime to get out of owing money. But, that's just me. Your judge r jury may vary.