examination under oath and deposition expert, auto theft expert, lemon law, claims negotiation, claims investigation, forensic locksmith, court appointed umpire, insurance property claim, vehicle recall expert, vehicle security expert, Texas license public adjuster,

Auto Theft Investigatl

Auto Theft Claims Master

Texas Licensed and Bonded All Lines Public Adjuster

Examination Under Oath Specialist

Dodd City, TX

Office 1-866-490-1673

Rob’s Cell 1-903-513-7808


If you are scheduled for an EUO on any type of claim (Especially Auto Theft) feel free to speak with an attorney, but then contact me. I have 25 years working with SIUs, 2g years of court service and have been deposed by the worst of the worst attorneys and am still standing! The examination under oath or the investigation have nothing to do with the law. Hiring an attorney is like hiring an electrician to do plumbing work. Attorneys have no legal standing in these situations with insurance investigations. If they do prep you (almost never) they give you all sorts of legal things to rember that are not relevant. Many of my clients fired attorneys and hired me and I got their claim paid! I operate with all 50 states. No contact! Everything is done by phone, electronically or digitally.

I can write a report on your vehicle if needed. An attorney can’t. I am available 7 days a week, holidays 24 hours a day to my clients.

Once settled, I can work Texas and 30 other states and can be retaned as your public adjuster getting you the most money for your claim.

These pages are meant to educate those not informed as to what commonly happens when one submits a vehicle theft claim. What the insured will commonly be subjected to by their insurance company and why.

We see all these fluffy, warming TV commercials as to how insurance companies “care” about their policy holders. Yet, when going through the SIU (Special Investigation Unit) investigation, the insured is not believed. Why? They are the number one suspect behind the reported theft.

Once assigned to the SIU, don’t hold out false hope because you told the truth that the claim will be settled.

The truth can be detrimental to the insured. Of course you need to tell the truth, but it can be easily turned into what appears to be an obsfucation. The truth is relative as well as subjective. The investigator already has predetermined this is a fraud claim because your vehicle has been deemed unstealable! There is nothing you can say or do to convince the investigator otherwise!

A third party vendor expert has already accused the insured as having the las key used. This is an obfuscation on the part of the experts, but it works because investigators and attorneys never ask simple questions. Instead, it is assumed that the conclusion has scientific validity because after all these services are rendered by Certified Forensic Locksmiths (CFLs). One of the simplest things to know is that attorneys look at this as a proper forensic discipline. They assume that everything has been done to TV standards like CSI or Forensic Files.

Plaintiiff attorneys once seeing one of these reports gets very nervouse about the ability to defend the case. Insurance defense attorneys puff their chest out having such a damning report validating their denial along with other facts.

Attorneys are supposed to be so smart and yet they swallowed this hook line and sinker! In general the CFL has defrauded the courts for years in my opinion.

I can take just about any report from any firm across the nation and prove that it is not written to scientific standards. The conclusion is a general conclusion that does not address a specific key, but just a general overtone that is deliberately meant to confuse, The conclusion in over 95% of reports is the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type. Key of the proper type can be the insureds everyday use key, the second key for the vehicle, a newly duplicated locksmith key, a cloned key, a thief’s key along with many more examples. These are all keys of the proper type, but because everyone is too stupid to ask exactly which insured key was used, it is just assumed the insured was involved in the theft claim!

For 20 years insureds have been denied because of this bull crap! After all, who would question a CFL? The first question would be who was the credentialing organization. A follow up would be: Are you aware that the organization that offered the CFL certification has been out of business for 5+ years?

It is easy for me to prove the CFL is a fraud, not from my opinion but common sense and fact! The insurance company never vetted these experts as to the scientific believability of their reports!

Car recovered burned? Chances are all electronics has been destroyed by fire and there is no way to render a conclusion, yet because of ignorance, these charlatans are believed!

Is there a way to get through the investigation and get the claim settled on your own? Next to impossible!

Examination Under Oath

‘I prepare my clients as to how to answer the questions correctly. We will go through a mock investigation. Mock Examination Under Oath where the insured is thoroughly prepared. 90% of the time goes in favor of my client. I personally have given hundreds of hours of sworn testimony on uto theft claims. I have also assisted successfully  on boat and home owners claims.

If denied, a whole other set of problems are created.

The insureds name goes on a secret insurance database as submitting a fraudulent claim. This information is available to all carriers. The name cannot ever be removed!

The only options you have are to write a complaint to the insurance commission. You will find no assistance in this area. The only other option is to sue the insurance company, but this will take years!

You will need not only an attorney on a contigency arrangement, but also a consultant such as myself to refute the forensic locksmith accusing you as the last one that drove the car with your key. Then, there  is no guaranty that you will prevail!

As the insured that is a victim of auto theft and then to be falsely accused do take on an attitude, for good reason I must say.

They may say, what about fact? What about evidence?

The truth of the matter is facts and evidence are not needed. All the investigator has to do is make it appear as though the insured is guilty.

Some investigators are jerks. Some are very nice to get more information out of you. No matter what, like the cops, they can and will lie to you!

Since the investigator is not an expert on auto theft or vehicle fire, they have to rely on self-proclaimed experts. Where do they locate these experts? From the carrier’s vendor list. Did the expert have to take a test or have to prove his methodology and conclusions were valid? Of course not! Someone from insurance company knew these guys personally. Many are locksmiths, some are engineers and others have no documented experience ever servicing a vehicle. I know of one that was a military dog trainer. Another that was an insurance claim Rep.

The so-called faceless forensic experts that will opine as to how the vehicle was last driven should definately be looked at with scutiny. They commonly use innuendo and assumption to form their highly questionable conclusions.

In many cases the SIU has reviewed the forensic conclusion on the vehicle or the keys. Some my target us for being biased against insurance companies and the Certified Forensic Locksmiths they contract to examine a reported stolen vehicle and or ignition and keys.

Actually, there is no truth to that argument at all. We expect these claims to be investigated as having insurance ourselves. That is the only way to keep rates down in going after the fraudsters.

What few realize abut us, is that we do insurance investigations/forensic examinations for insurance companies. Just not as many as the CFLs they contract, because we can’t always give the insurance investigator the answers he wants. We do have a bias, and that bias is for the truth!

In their current situation, the CFLs rendering forensic services for the insurance companies in our opinion are using malicious deceit with ambiguous statements made to appear as though specific and factual. We feel in our opinion this is a dishonest approach. We want no part of rendering such conclusions and for those we oppose, well, they don’t like us too much!

Insurance investigators will use the CFL report on the vehicle suggesting the reported stolen vehicle was last driven with the insured’s key. Having a report in their hands suggesting this, gives the green light to manufacture a case of financial motivation with limits only as far as the investigator’s imagination! The investigation results don’t have to be true. They just have to appear true.

We are not lawyers and we do not give legal advice. We are consultants that can guide the insured through every step of the investigation. We prepare our clients for the EUO (Examination Under Oath) which is a commonly used tool of sworn testimony by the insured. A claim that was targeted for denial, with our intervention is commonly paid. That is because the insured did not answer the questions the way the company attorney/investigator assumed they would and answered the questios in a manner they never saw coming! We have hundreds of hours in sworn testimony experience and we commonly know the questions before they ask them. We prepare the client accordingly.

The EUO may be the time the forensic report is brought forth for the insured’s reaction accusing them of having the last key used.

Since they don’t trust the insured, why should the insured trust anything SIU has to say? When referring to the forensic locksmith activities that insurance carriers employ as “fraudulent,” this is not being submitted as an opinion on our part, but rather a definition (there are many) as to what the word portrays:


deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 2
a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

Our purpose is not to attack anyone personally, but to illustrate a problem that insurance companies have failed to recognize (not economically viable) for over a decade and it has been more common than not, for me to successfully expose this issue in court for the last 18 years. Included is just one sample of a forensic locksmith’s report on a claim that was denied involving a vehicle that was never recovered. We have hundreds of like kind reports with the same type of unsupported hyperbole on recovered and recovered burned vehicles. The forensic locksmith has made it so bad that someone submitting a fraudulent claim could prevail, because the forensics simply cannot be believed if their previous reports were compared to the report at hand! This is not about one person, but an industry known as certified forensic locksmiths nationwide!

This is what we imagine the forensic locksmith vehicle examination tool as being:

Here is another very crucial point: If fraud is interjected into a fraud investigation on an insured as an investigation tool, it compromises the totality of that fraud investigation. In summary folks, we are not name calling and it is what it is!

Auto Theft Assumption Portrayed as Fact

A little about Rob

Should I hire an attorney during the investigation of my auto theft claim?

Very long read, but filled with critical information as it relates to the obfuscations stated as fact by an industry that has no shame. It’s one thing for me to accuse those forensic locksmiths of criminal activity. It’s quite another to be able to illustrate it with their words and their writings!

Cops behind the 8 ball once again!


I have never advocated that insurance fraud and auto theft were not a problem. What I do state though is that Progressive, State Farm, Geico, Allstate, USAA and other major insurers deliberately use blatant misrepresentation in many of their fraud investigations as the catalyst to vigorously investigate the insured. These carriers have had their hands slapped in bad faith options many times over the last decade because of this event, but it is all a numbers game. Hundreds of thousands or millions seems like a lot of money. The truth of the matter is that these amounts are chump change to them. Instead, their actuaries have predetermined losses figured in. Let’s say 100% of all auto theft claims are denied. Then hypothetically only 5% of insured’s contest the denial. Can you in the public, even believe the almost unimaginable number of dollars they save by not paying on that 95% every day, in every state, multiplied by the amount of auto carriers over a year’s time? Then multiply that by 10 for a decade.

There are a multitude of reasons (other than being guilty of fraud) that these claims are not contested. Inept legal representation, threats even to the innocent that they will be prosecuted and lack of funds to pursue these cases by the insured. Attorneys are in business to make money. If the value of the claim is under $10k, they probably won’t take it, and many do not know how to lay out a great defense for bad faith, so they look only at the dollar value of the claim.

The forensic locksmithing industry is severely flawed, deceitful, disingenuous, and deceptive and is emblematic as the caustic culture of corruption. The forensic locksmith feeds on the ignorance of the lawyers and the court system. They are not the direct reason for a denial of an auto theft claim and serve more as a catalyst under the ruse of being “independent.” I want to personally thank Herb Miller of Arc Forensics for boldly illustrating my point. The plaintiff attorney was left scratching her head here with the thought that the insurance company performed due diligence with the use of an expert that heralds himself out to be “Forensic.” She continued to look at legal strategy instead of realizing the obvious–no physical evidence because the vehicle had not been recovered! Duh!!!!!

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not calling out Miller, but a total industry built on smoke and mirrors. I cite free use in putting his report on this site and I give Herb Miller/ Arc Forensics full copyright acknowledgment. In essence, there is not one of these experts nationwide that can’t be caused to self-impeach their testimony.

No one understands the insurance investigation protocol and the forensic locksmith scam better, in which a report on the vehicle theft will state the vehicle was last driven with a key of the proper type, inferring the insured’s key. This conclusion in a forensic report does a number of things.

First, whether the carrier has any knowledge one way or the other, the forensic lock exam establishes that the vehicle was driven from the theft scene.

Secondly, the report establishes that the vehicle was last driven with what appears to be the insured’s key.

Lastly, the conclusion on the forensic exam taints the investigator into believing the insured was involved with the theft.

The insured might be thinking: “They are accusing me of stealing my own car!” If you want to know why you are getting that impression–they are!

Insured’s/Victims of Stolen Vehicles

Power of Attorney Representation—- in the claims investigation process. We teach the insured’s how to answer investigation and EUO questions properly and honestly. If the claim has been denied and the insured wants to sue the carrier, we can do that as well. Please note, we are not attorneys, however state statutes of Power of Attorney give us wide latitude in defending these cases as well as negotiation for settlement.

Our Mission

Commonly, insured’s are accused of being involved with the theft of their vehicle. This paradigm begins once the forensic locksmith has submitted his subjective findings that the vehicle was last driven with what is inferred to be the insured’s key or keys. The term “Key of the proper type was last used to drive the vehicle” is predominant throughout the nation. Unfortunately, there is no one on a nation-wide basis that understands the auto theft claims investigation process more than we do as illustrated on this site.

Some have said that we go out of our way to prove law enforcement and insurance companies wrong. This is not a true depiction of our purpose. Our purpose is to prove the forensics the investigation was based on is accurate an unambiguous in the reporting and that the principles applied are standardized and sound. We are totally objective when reviewing forensic reports determining the last key purportedly used in a reported stolen vehicle. What we have found in over two decades of reviewing these reports, only one was performed at a competent process. Every other report we have seen has been ambiguous and always refers to the insured’s being the last key used in the ignition. Can this conclusion be scientifically proven? No! The court’s are left taking the purported self proclaimed forensic locksmith’s word for it! We will not accept this!

In our opinion, this is (Forensic locksmith report) perpetuating a fraud in a fraud investigation to accuse the insured of fraud!

We feel it is our job to level the playing field to exploit the truth.

┬ęCopyright 2020 Rob Painter. All rights reserved

%d bloggers like this: