Auto Theft Claims Master


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Auto Theft Vehicle Component Specialist

Rob Painter

607 Market Street West

Honey Grove, TX 75446



Court Qualified Expert Witness on Auto Theft/Forensics

Vehicle Fire O&C

Vehicle Failure Analysis

Consultant to Insureds on SIU

Consultation & Presentatations for SIU

AutoTheft Examinarions

Subrogation Involving Vehicle Events

Vehicle Security

Vehicle & Semi Collision Analysis

Air Bag Non-Deployment

GM Ignition Recall

All examinations are performed using the scientific method in which reports are prepared for peer review.

The methodology used can be replicated, and if someone else were to use the outline methodology, their conclusion should be the same.

Unfortunately in the field of auto theft and forensic locksmithing, such is not the case.

It’s common to see where instead of all the facts being considered before reaching a conclusion, just the opposite is true.

The conclusion is pre-determined and the so-called facts are made to match the conclusion!

It is common to see cookie cutter reports. The reports in some cases are word for word the same and the only thing different is the type of vehicle, the insurance client and the insureds information.

This is the only field I have ever run across this event!

Vehicle examination protocol changes by the hour. The worst thing is that the courts believe these Charlatans because the courts do have any way of determining if what they are being told by the expert is true.

In a Vior Dire the person may have 20 years as a locksmith, but if claiming to be a forensic locksmith, what experience does he have in that field?

Is the methodology being used in the forensic exam peer reviewed and accepted?

Does the examination methodology make sense?

It should be fully explained if asked in court in laymam terms!

These culprits use many titles for credibility for deliberate confusion. Certified Forensic Locksmith, Engineer and others.

Forensic locksmithing on a reported stolen vehicle as to how it was last driven has other strange things that to my knowledge no other kind of examination exists!

Any other industry I serve, one cannot be alone and do destructive testing, especially when they have a vested interest like these experts do.

The insured will be told forensics is going to be done on their vehicle. They are not given the location, date or time.

In the event the insured hires their own expert to be present during the examination, the investigator will not let the insured’s expert within 100″ of the vehicle during the exam! They will however let the insured’s attorney be present, because the attorney has no one idea what the forensic locksmith is doing!

Something as minor as inserting a key into the ignition can be destructive testing!

This is akin to trying to stick the tooth paste in the tube!

Forensic locksmithing is the only industry I am aware of that does not rely on facts, but utter speculation masqueraded as fact. I will give an example, and what makes this all that much worse is this was a crminal trial based primarily on the prosecution’s star witness (ecpert’s) report in New Bedford, MA in People v Rogers on 10/28/2014.

I will paraphrase the results of this reported stolen, recovered vehicle and how it was assumed to be driven with a key of the proper type. This was a 2008 Eqinox with the PK III Anti-Theft transponder system (computer chip in key).

Here is the paraphrased expert’s account. Pay attention and you will see the speculation passed off as fact!!

A dent puller with a broken bolwas found on the driver’s floor. No parts to the ignition lock were recovered. If the ignition was found, it MAY have had the remains of the broken bolt in the dent puller. Had the ignition lock been forcibly been removed with a dent puller We (referring to the company he worked for) are not aware oany way this vehicle would start and run and this vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type.

Because of his blatant ignorance and arrogance, the prosecutor felt thiwas a very strong gorrnsic report. He was not at all happy, nor was his expert when I took the report all apart. Before doing that though, I gave 6 different methods to steal the vehicle. All, which could not be confirmed of denied, due to the fire damage and missing Ignition lock!

As for the expert’s report. Frs, we do not know if the dent puller found was used in this vehicle. Burn cars are sed as trash bins. It could have been from another burned vehicle next to it where it was examined.

Secondly, a guess is being used as a fact about the possibility that if the lock had been located, it would hdave had the broken remsins of the bolt from the dent puller.

Lastly, just because the people at his firm are ignorant and incompent about knowing how to easily bypass the PK III Anyi-Theft transponder system, which many know how to, that’s OK to have my client charged with felonies?

I stayed in court for closing arguments.

The defense closing argument was based totally on Painter’s testimony. My client was acquitted!

Here is the real problem in these criminal cases with auto theft. The insurance company has a different threshold in a civil case as compared to a criminal case. The threshold is very flimsy for civil known as preponderance. Assumption, speculation and innuendo is treated as fact in a civil case. I am not a lawyer and am just putting this down as I understand it to be.

The prosecution on the other hand is supposed to prove his care beyond any reasonable doubt, which means their case must he based on real fact. In these auto theft cases all they have s what the insurance company supplied them with, preponderance! Yet the prosecution will sattrmp to convict on what they refer to as circumstantial evidence A/K/A assumption, speculation and innuendo as fact.

This is exactly why if the defense does not have their own expert like me to counter the prosecution, chances of the insured being convicted are close to 100%!














One would not think these experts swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, would commonly use speculation and innuendo as fact. They do however! Half truths abound!

After all, they are the experts, who would dare question then?

This hurts their client the insurance company too! The nvestigator is reliant on their so called expertise! Without the expert’s opinion, they do not know if the claim should be investigated or not. The investigator does not know if the reported stolen vehicle was driven last with what is assumed to be the insured’s key or if stolen.

This industry operates under a Vail of secrecy.

If the insured hires their own expert to be present at the time of the forensic examination of the ignition, the insured’s expert is not allowed within 100′ of the vehicle!

The insurance expert who has a vested interest in the outcome of the claim, is allowed to perform destructive testing on the ignition, and there is no question. Why? One can not do this in fire examinations, vehicle recall exams. A representative for all sides is present during destructive testing!

Yet, insureds can have their lives turned upside down, going through brutal sworn testimony, only to have their auto theft claim denied. The only recourse then, which takes years, is to sue. If the insured doesn’t have a competent expert, chances are that getting full compensation is slim.

In the mean time, the lien holder wants their money and the insured has no vehicle!

As for the blame of a person having nothing to do with the theft, it all falls on a faceless expert that was hand-picked from the insurance company’s vendor list.

The investigator s only as good as the information they have by the expert who supposedly is making the right call.

Most of the Special Investigation Units (SIU) are composed of ex-cops.

Once they are told by the expert the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type by the expert, they now believe the claim is fraudulent. There s nothing the insured can do or say that will convince them otherwise. After all, who would have the audacity to question the self-proclaimed expert?

In my very experienced opinion, yes there is fraud in auto theft claims. We have to look for the fraud. Is it on the insured’s part? Or is it the expert who is committing the fraud?

Since 1990, I have seen it both ways!

One dare not question the expert’s methodology or conclusions, because commonly there are years long friendships that have developed between the investigator and the expert.










© Copyright 2018. Rob Painter. All rights reserved.


What Do I Require For An Expert in My Auto Theft Claim Denial Case?

If you have an auto theft claim denial case, in order to convince a jury that the Certified Forensic Locksmith that determined  the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type, is incompetent  and cannot be believed.

These cases can be complex and your expert needs the capability of knowing the experts he is opposing.

The optimal situation is if e has opposed the experts before.

If he has depositions and/or trial testimony of theirs.

If he has reports of theirs, where a pattern can be laid out that they shipped steps in their examinations and still had the same conclusions?

Do the CFLs have an error rating on their testing processes?

Is the expert capable of supplying hard hitting questions for your attorney to ask the CFLs?

Is the expert court savvy?

Has he been through a number of trials for plaintiffs?

Has he served as an expert for insurance companies?

Is he familiar with how the vehicle at hand can be stolen?

Is the expert fully informed on the forensic locksmithing process?

Has he ever published a very large training program on auto theft and forensics investigation, with the testing processes vetted by the FBI?

Is the expert trained in all aspects of manufacturing keys and locks?

Is the expert capable of being a car thief?

Does the expert have 37 years experience with auto theft?

Has tje expert defeated an unstealable transponder system with a strategically placed wire?

Has the expert got vehicle fire and defect experience?

Does the expert work for insurance companies?

Does the expert srrve a plaintiff?

Does the expert serve criminal defendants?

Does the expert serve the prosecution?

Has the expert ever shown his unbiased approach by being appointed an umpire by the courts.

Has the expert published over 50, books and articles on auto theft and forensics?

Has his career encompassed more than just examination of locks, transponder systems and auto theft?

Has he set up the industry standsrds for the examination of stolen vehicles?


Your expert needs to know everything about the auto theft SIU investigation and EUO preparation process in order to assist your attorney with bad faith.


If this is the type of expert you need to prevail in an auto theft claim denial case, we are the firm you need. There is no one else!


1-866-490-1673 ask for Rob





Court Qualified Auto Theft Expert Witness That has the Uncanny Ability to Refute Insurance Paid Ignition Forensic Locksmith or Engineer! The Experts Of Course, Wrongly Determined the Last Key Used In A Reported Stolen Vehicle!


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Source: Auto Theft Claim SIU Investigation, EUO Consultant. Court Qualified Auto Theft/Forensic Expert Witness, Vehicle Fire Origin and Cause Instructor. Serving nationwide and Canada.




In California due to how I handled a criminal case against an expert, I was coined with a nickname. The attorney had stated he just needed a couple points hammered home. Well, I over did it as an overachiever–LOL .The name I was given was: “Sledge Hammer!”

There is no bragging here and my court record reflects that. I am forced to oppose what is in my opinion very unqualified experts!

Insurance companies, you are with me or not. Makes no never mind to me! Over the last 20+ years I have commonly refuted the insurance experts in court, illustrating they could not prove anything they concluded based on fact. We offer services to insurance companies.

Is there a definitive way of determing the determination of the last key used in a reported stolen vehicle? Absolutely! When at the time of the exam, the key is inserted into the ignition. 100% certainty in that case!

Now, I have pivoted. I am tired of the lies and deception in my opinion, put forh as fact by the all knowing insurance forensic expert. It seems the longer I am in this business, more charlatans are brought forward as forensic experts inferring that the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with the insured’s key. All based on NET OPINION and not differential diagnoses. In other words, their opinions are based on speculation from the demented perspected of what the forensic locksmith would or would not do to steal the car!

These conclusions are based on conjecture! Every case I take on seems like I reviewing the report of a liar in order to assist the client insurance company to authorize a veryy intrusive investigation on the insured. Who am I to judge?

Years ago, there used to be a scientific procedure for ignition examinations. As for the ignition, this required the removal and disassembly of the ignition lock. Once disassembled, the wafers (tumblers) were put under a microscope at 10x, 20x and 30x magnification. Microscopic photos were taken indicating any identifiable tool marks corresponding to the supplied ignition keys. The lack of tool marks or witness marks accordingly must be taken unddr consideration. The narrative is to determine the last key used in the ignition. While this is virtually impossible in spite of what experts claim, one may be able to determine keys recently used in the ignition.

About 2005, the experts did away with this testing for expediency. Why spend hours examining an ignition lock, when one could do it in 5 minutes! It didn’t seem to matter if 50% of the indicators observed under a microscope were missing from the new hi-tech standards. The new standards required the use of a lighted magnified scope put into the key way. Therre are a number of reasons this testing is severely flawed, but it has gotten dramatically worse! Now, engineers appear to think they are competent to determine the last key used. They have no clue as to what they are talking about. Its bad enough when these are civil cases, but are also criminal cases!

Key/Lock Wafer Wear

I am going to put things into a very common sensical way so everyone can understand the crap behind this “Scientific” process. These experts use the fact they are civil engineers and just by title must know more than anyone whren it comes to tool mark analysis. They have no background in tool marks, but we must believe them because they are licensed engineers! I have two reports from California dealing with this at the moment. The processes from the same company are the same and the conclusions are the same. One of these also had a fire investigation, where arson was determined.

OK, the key is a striker tool and is harder than the soft brass or aluminum wafers it contacts when inserted into the ignition lock. Over useage, errosion develops to the wafers in which the key or keys will leave a path. Keys are double cut meaning they can be inserted into the lock from either cut direction. Each key after a period of time will leave these wear paths (2 per key). If two keys are commonly used, you will have potentially 4 key pths. Some pronounced more than others. Both the vehicles I am referrencing had over 100,000 miles on them. There may be identifiable anomolies on the key cuts and how they interact with the corresponding wafers. The engineers removed the ignitions. They disassembled the ignitions. they took regular photographs of the wafers. No macro potos or no micro photos. The conclusion with just examining one key and not the others for the vehicle was that no marks were observed, meaning the key they examined was the last one used!

In the criminal case, just on this alone, I can establish reasonable doubt one could drive a semi through! The civil case will be just as absolute!

As stated, we will have wear at those mileages. Groves inset into the wafers from key insertion. Yet, it is said, because no tool marks wre observed, the last key used was the one examined. There is a reason the observed no such wear marks. They didn’t examine the wafers with a microscop and not even a $5 magnifying glass! Even the fact that it was stated there were no tool marks observed, there is no facttual way they can correlate this event to the examined key being the last used. Many of these so-called experts use assumption as the investigation guide line. In the even there were marks they were looking for, this goes to the assumption and no fact, that a newly cut key will have rough edges and will leave marks. Their lack of competence in this area leaves me in awe! Laser key cutters which are commoly used to duplicate keys, do not leave any rough edges and the key is smooth. It will not leave marks!

These experts have the insured’s life in their hands and they don’t care as long as they get paid for supplying reports indicating insured’s involvement!

This is not arrogance talking. You experts are too incompetent to oppose me, and I am going on a full frontal assault on you lying thieves! Insurance defense and prosecutors that I am opposing will try to show my anti-insurance bias. O course that did not work well for the prosecutor in a criminal case in virgina in sept of 2017. I made sure i could inform him anfd the jury, my firm just took on another insurance assignment the day before court! So much for bias!

I am very good at factually portraying my points. So much so, that I was coined a name by client attorneys needing a small point hammered home. I am known as the “Sledge Hammer!” I am not aware of anyone serving in the court as an expert that knows more than me about my subjects and I am always sadly disappointed opposing the all-knowing experts I do! They lose–we win!!!!


That is another issue that just drives me nuts and is from my experience to common from California to new Jersey! Arson was determined, yet no determination was made of the accellerant. Well, if you have no determination as to the accelerant, you simply cannot call the fire arson! They do however! If an accellerant is not determine, the fire can’t even be ruled in or out as accidental!


Auto Theft Investigation

I will break this down for simple understanding. SIU is the Special Investigation Unit.  With the claim being referred to the SIU, this means they are looking at the insured not as a auto theft victim anymore, but someone suspected as submitting a fraudulent claim. What’s that? You had nothing to do with the reported theft? That attitde falls on deaf ears! You are guilty and the investigator is going to prove it! At least that is their narrative.

The investigator has no proof to this because it simply isn’t true! The investigator doesn’t need proof other than the independent certified forensic locksmith they contracted who is insinuating that it was the insured’s key that last drove the reported stolen vehicle!

So the insured is being accused by an unknown person referred to as an “independent” certified forensic locksmith (CFL) that wrote a report on your vehicle (the vehicle does not even have to be recovered where he examined no physical evidence) indicating for a conclusion that the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type!

After your recorded statement, a number of facts (red flags a/k/a fraud indicators) were applied to the claim for the purpose of referring it to the SIU. The investigator went to the vendor list and assigned the claim to a CFL.

What is interesting here, is the investigator hand-picked the CFL, and the insured was never given the opportunity to have an expert representing them at the time of the CFL exam. Why not? Does the insurance company have something to hide?

Part of the issue here is that many investigators that know nothing about the methodologies to defeat ignitions and transponder systems and rely on people that claim they do. These vendors will present free seminars for insurance companies claiming they have specialized training, experience and background to separate the myths from the truth on auto theft claims. They also purport to have the ability to determine the last key used in the ignition.

In some cases they do. In fact, it commonly is the insured’s key that was last used in the ignition, when the certified forensic locksmith inserted the insured’s supplied ignition key into the ignition lock to perform a function test!

This is a process. Once the CFL has submitted his report, whether he examined the vehicle, keys, ignition, interrogated the computer and indicates the vehicle was last driven with a key for the vehicle, the investigator now has the green light for a full blown investigation on the insured. The insured’s involvement does not have to proven. The case being built is based on not what it is, but what it appears to be.

A good example for financial motivation goes like this: The vehicle was recovered a total loss. The insured might owe $28,000 on a vehicle worth $20,000.00. This is known as upside down in the vehicle. Now, let’s say the insured has gap insurance. Gap insurance picks up the difference from what is owed to the actual cash value of the vehicle.

The investigator will claim that the insured could not afford the payments and had the vehicle made into a total loss, so all the insured is responsible for is the deductible and the insured can walk away from any financial liability.

In another situation, let’s say the value of the vehicle is $60,000 and nott recovered. The motivation would be that insured has an astronomical amount of debt, and the insured’s motivation is that they would receive $60,000.00 cash! However, the one fact that the insurance company leaves out is the insured doesn’t get the cash as portrayed and the funds would go to the lien holder!

Insurance fraud is a major problem. I stand by the carriers in their investigations and have no bias against them. I commend the SIU.

The problem though is it is also common for an overzealous investigator to paint all insured’s with the same brush!

Sometimes the investigators put too much faith in their certified forensic locksmiths. I have pointed it out so often, commonly in court that the CFL in my opinion is being deceptive and giving the reader of his reports the false impression that because of their great forensic abilities, they are determining the last specific key used. What they are saying in their reports on recovered thefts, recovered stolen and burned and not recovered is the same exact conclusion of key of the proper type.

There was no scientific or technical skill required to reach this conclusion, but because they are using the badge of forensics, they must be able to determine the last key used. Are these reports specifying the insured’s first and every day use key? No! Are they saying the vehicle was last driven with the insured’s second key? No! Are they saying that the vehicle was last driven with a thief’s key? No! Yet, every one of these examples is a key of the proper type.

One might say that a newly cut key would leave fresh tool marks. How do they know this for a fact? This assumes that a newly cut key will have rough edges and will drag across the wafer lands (Where the key Rides). A competent locksmith and a thief don’t want problems inserting or removing a key, so they will buff all the rough edges. A smooth key is not going to leave any marks. That is simple common sense!

Even though the inventor (who is now retired) of the last key used process from the 90’s has stated in depositions, for a key to create wear patterns, it has to be inserted at least 500 times!

When it comes to the SIU investigation, one has to be very careful truthfully answering the questions! The investigator is convinced the insured has submitted a fraudulent claim, and this is not the time the insured should be defending themselves!

We consult the insured, letting them know up front, what type of loaded questions are going to be asked and how to truthfully address them. We are not lawyers and don’t give legal advice. However, we have given hundreds of hours of sworn testimony. We also prepare the insured for an EUO (Examination Under Oath).

We have over 20 years working with SIUs and we know the process extremely well.

If you are under an Auto Theft SIU investigation, give us a call!


Cell 1-903-513-7808


Serve 50 states. Distance not a problem with investigation consultation. Everything is done through  phone and email.







Auto theft claim siu investigation, EUO Auto Theft/Forensic Locksmith Expert Witness.


, , , ,


Unlike the forensic locksmiths serving insurance industry as experts, I serve anyone looking for the truth. Whether for insurance defense, prosecution, plaintiff or criminal defense attorneys.

Except for a small number of insurance companies, I have been shut out by insurance companies for only one reason: I dare be unbiased and serve anyone. Insurance companies like Progressive quit using my services in 1997 when I opposed one of their experts.

Allstate quit using me in 2000 because aTennessee plaintiff attorney named me as his expert without my permission and without being retained.

Yes, investigators will say they want an unbiased expert, of course as long as you don’t take a case against an insurance company!