I have likened an examination under oath to a minefieild in which I prevent my client from getting blown up. A better analogy would be say you imagined yourself with heroes like Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp and his brothers at the OK corral for a gun fight, but you had one problem you didn’t have any guns for the gun fight!
That would be an awful feeling wouldn’t it? This is what you face going against well seasoned investigators and sometime an attorney retained just to make you really in fear as if this were some sort of legal proceeding. It’s not, and it is only designed to appear that way, so you may hire an incompetent attorney that knows nothing about insurance investigations to defend you in something they can’t defend you on in the first place!
Please don’t misunderstand. There is a time and a place for attorneys, but an examination under oath is not one of those times. In fact, I have seen many situations where the attorney created more problems for the insured than helped them.
Attorneys know law I have over 25 years testimony offering sworn testimony.with insurance investigations, subrogation a and other areas of all types of claims. Auto thefts are my specialty, but when it comes to examination under oath, all types of claims, marine, commercial, homeowners, the template is the same.
i do not give legal advice. The investigation and the examination under oath I’m not illegal setting and a lawyer is not required. Of course lawyers advertise for this type of work because it’s very easy for them. In many cases the client has no way annoying if the attorney is doing good or bad for them. It’s just the feeling that you are retaining an attorney and won’t be badgered by the insurance company. Truth of the matter is they will abuse you anyway.
the way it works is lawyers got their own little club. They made golf together dine together and be friends. It’s an act that they’re putting on when they’re supposedly opposing each other and I investigation or examination on under oath. Anyone that is not a lawyer is not part of their little club. That’s just how it is I didn’t make up the rules.
I genuinely represent my client and I can do anything an attorney can do and much more. I have more knowledge on the subject especially when it comes to auto theft where most attorneys are clueless when they hear the word forensic locksmith. In auto theft claims insurance companies facilitate fraud by hiring fraudulent forensic experts that will accuse the insured of involvement with the depth of the vehicle. This way the insurance company doesn’t have to accuse him of fraud a third party does it. That third party they claim is independent. The reason they’re independent is they have their own business which is not part of the insurance company. What you need to remember is it the insurance investigator hand-picked this third party expert from their vendor list.
have these experts ever been vetted as far as the quality of the conclusions in their reports? No they have not been vetted and so everybody’s just supposed to take their word for whatever they say doesn’t really matter if they can prove it.
he’s experts rely on the fact that the jury will believe them because they have a forensic title that they have given themselves. Even their titles are bogus. The organization that gave out the credential certified forensic locksmith has been out of business for years, well over 5 years. The organization is called the international association of investigative locksmiths. We’re in the title does it say anything about forensics? It’s investigative locksmiths that will assume fax as they relate to auto theft even though they’ve had no exposure to auto theft. They use the perception as to how they would steal a vehicle which is not consistent with how a thief would steal a vehicle. There’s no standards as to how they inspect the vehicle. I have over 120 reports from one firm and I had to put together a spreadsheet for a court case as to consistencies of things examined. There was no consistency. One car they may remove the ignition lock disassemble it and put the components under a microscope comparing them to the key. The next vehicle didn’t touch the ignition lock. I am not sure where they have taken a consideration for aftermarket options like that of a remote start. Remote start bypasses the transponder system and the vehicle can now be taken without a correctly programmed key. Or in many cases there is a program key in the car to lie to the computer it’s under the driver side dash. If the thief finds that drives a vehicle away. The forensic locksmith doesn’t even look for evidence of such a option and it’d be there in the car. When you spill a nonsense that the vehicle was designed not to be stolen by the factory requiring a coated key and not look for such an option in a vehicle that’s incompetence. Remote start is a common aftermarket option so the vehicle can be warmed up from a distance without the key in the ignition or cool down when it’s hot outside.
the forensic locksmith testifies I’m confusion. After all he’s not a locksmith he’s a forensic locksmith. Yet the only thing forensic in their reports is their title. When performing forensics on a vehicle did you determine how it was last driven one needs all known keys has to disassemble the lock and examine under a microscope and look for possible consistent striations between the keys and the tumblers. Over the years so this has been too much work for these so-called experts. Instead of using a microscope no just install a scope into the keyway and look inside. To clean the inside of the lock they use penetrating oil. What is penetrating oil do? It penetrates it’s an abrasive. So now you got all this debris in there from over the years pocket lint dirt etc. You spray it down now you shove the key inside possibly you made new marks. Without removing a lot you can’t do a comparison between a specific key and the tumblers. You can’t examine both sides of the tumblers. In other words you get about 50% of what you would get out of a microscopic examination. The difference in time though is quite amazing. It’s a lock is removed and disassembled clean examine under microscope it takes a lot of time at least a couple hours. What you using the opthamologist scope are otoscope the examination time is minutes. There’s many hypotheses you can’t eliminate when you don’t do a full and complete examination. Do they care no. Does anybody know any better between the two examination methods? No. So not why not just do it the lazy way? The only time that these experts get in trouble is if I’m involved in the case and then I make them prove which they can’t their conclusions. That assumes that they’re trying to run through a scientific conclusion.
there’s a trick to all this though are too ignorant to know about getting played by these experts. If they were truly using the forensic process they might be able to determine the specific key last used in the ignition. But instead of doing that they use general terms that are truthful but severely deceptive. The most common conclusion that about 99% of all reports that I have seen throughout the country states the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. That is assumed to be the insureds key. Stay with me folks people go to jail on this. Assumption is not fact even though it is used as fact. Prosecutors use this particular conclusion to convict! And they are successful because nobody knows any better.
kill the proper type can be any key that will operate the vehicle. It could be the insured everyday use key, the second key is not used very often for the vehicle. It’d be a locksmith key that was recently made. It could be on account key like that from my used car where you only got one key and it was the other key that no one knew about where it was. It could also be a clone key and it could be a thief’s program key. I can give more examples but all these are key of the proper type. So which specific key was last used to drive the vehicle? No one knows no one bother trying to find out and yet you’re supposed to take the forensic locksmith word for it. Many forensic locksmiths would know a stolen car if they were sitting in one. That doesn’t matter though. Their conclusion and supposedly on questionable because after all their forensic locksmiths and the court qualified them as experts. Of course the right questions weren’t asked to them by the attorneys during the process of determining if the person was qualified be an expert witness in the area of 9 locks but Auto theft which is what they are testifying to. These forensic locksmiths or charlatans. As far as the investigator goes he just relies on the expert.
in vehicle is reported stolen recovered burned. Many look at the fire damage and go oh my God how could anybody determine how this vehicle was last driven? The truth of the matter is the forensic locksmith can’t but he’ll turn around and tell you that he knows how that vehicle was last driven and you can’t question him. Doesn’t matter if all the computer components are burned up and there’s no way of reading any data as to the specific keys we’re at the transponder was working at the time of the theft or bypass electronically. Am I saying that they lie? I will just let you be the judge. To prove my point further as to how no forensics is really actually done many of these so-called forensic locksmiths will take on clams for the vehicle as a member covered. In this case they have no way of examining the vehicle the lock the computer any type of forest entry nothing. Yet though write a report on just like they examine the vehicle. Well if they’re willing to do that then one would say what’s the sense in them going to all the work of examining the vehicles in the first place? When the examine vehicles in the first place they can puff up the report thicker with lots of photos meaning more money on a report. What is the difference between me and forensic locksmiths other than the fact that I know how to actually do that type of work and wrote a 1350 PowerPoint slide course on it? I can prove everything I say in fact refute some rather well. The problem with the attorneys is they actually give credence to the forensic locksmith having a different type of discipline. They look at the forensic locksmith is a professional you know line of forensics. There’s a problem with that they don’t know how to sort through the crap.
I have an examination under oath where my client needed me to change hats from being a consultant to being their expert. I would supply a report on the vehicle and refute the opposing experts without ever seeing their report and being very successful doing it because they are that predictable.
if you have an honest claim there’s other investigation there’s only one place to go and that’s my firm. I can make the difference as to what happens in the claim. I’ve been representing clients and investigations and examination under oath for over 10 years with a 95% success rate. None of my clients has ever been charged with felony Insurance run and attorneys can’t say that.
if you want to be properly prepared and have no surprises I’m the guy you want to talk to. My clients are prepared very well and they’re set up for the players involved and what’s going to go down. Think of me as your bully that’s 600 lb gorilla that you need by your side figuratively to carry you through the claim. No matter how anxious my clients are and even after attorneys and I’m getting involved in a case I always say be prepared to have fun. When it’s all said and done believe it or not the client had fun!