Question

Larry Lee’s 1985 Lamborghini was stolen, and by the time Lee recovered the car, it had been extensively damaged. The car was insured by Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington under a policy providing comprehensive coverage, including car theft. A provision in the policy stated that the coverage for theft damages was subject to certain terms and conditions, including the condition that any person claiming coverage under the policy must allow Farmers "to inspect and appraise the damage vehicle before its repair or disposal." Lee, without notifying Farmers and without giving Farmers an opportunity to inspect the vehicle sold the car to a wholesale car dealer. Farmers then denied the coverage, and Lee brought suit to recover for the damages caused to his car by the theft. Does Lee have a valid claim against the insurance company?

Answer 1

Lee does not have a valid claim against the insurance company.

Step-by-step explanation:

The insurance company that had Lee as a customer made it very clear that coverage for car damage caused by theft was subject to certain terms and conditions, including the condition that anyone claiming coverage under the policy must allow farmers "inspect and evaluate the damaged vehicle prior to repair or disposal".

Lee did not allow farmers to inspect and evaluate the curriculum. Thus, he broke a clause of his contract with the insurance company, causing him to lose those benefits.