Dealing With Car Thieves

By Author: Marcus Stalder
Total Articles: 491
Comment this article

There's a proposal being discussed in Saskatchewan. In theory, it's a simple idea. If someone is convicted of one of the more serious offenses while driving a stolen vehicle, they should be denied access to the full range of insurance products. The Canadian authorities want to send a message to thieves that there will be penalties outside the criminal court system. So, for example, the plan is to deny income replacement benefits, i.e. if a wage earner is injured, lost earnings can be claimed under Saskatchewan law. There would also be limits on the amount of medical expenses payable after an accident. So if our criminal driver only has cuts and bruises, they will be treated, but Heaven help "him" if he has any more serious injuries. This proposal would deny payment of the usual lump sums to people who lose an arm or leg, and so on.

So let's see how this would work on our side of the border. We start with the assumption that anyone convicted of theft would be restricted to liability cover. This would make it impossible to buy a vehicle with an auto loan because it's a standard term of loans that the owner buys both collision ...
... and comprehensive cover. There are two questions arising from this. The first, is this a punishment? Under the Fourteenth Amendment, everyone is entitled to due process and so a state should not deprive a person of liberties and rights without a proper application of the law, usually through the courts where representations can be made. Obviously, the law currently permits a judge to confiscate a felon's property and restrict his or her rights in various circumstances. But this will usually be restricted in time. Having the right to drive as an adult might be considered a right or liberty deserving protection. So states might breach the Fourteen Amendment if its lawmakers tried to remove the right without a trial, i.e. by denial of insurance. However, the Canadians do not intend to deny insurance altogether. It's simply a denial of some benefits. If our lawmakers also allowed felons to buy liability insurance, this should not be unconstitutional.

Second, how will the thieves react? In theory, there should be no reaction. Like many others who are short of cash, they will buy the mandatory minimum and self-insure the cost of both medical treatment and repairing their own vehicle. There's no reason to feel any more resentful. But that's not the way car thieves think. They have already demonstrated a lack of respect for others' property and so may be more likely to drive without insurance. As it is, many states are now reporting up to 20% of those on the roads are driving without insurance. If this approach was accepted on our side of the border, this percentage might increase which would not be good for us.

If too many people drive without insurance, the auto insurance quotes for all law-abiding citizens will rise. This is obviously unfair. So all states should do whatever they can to encourage everyone, even those convicted as car thieves, to obey the law and carry the mandatory minimum cover. Although this will not produce cheap car insurance, it will lower the premium rates and make cover more affordable.