Larceny recourse

[Jobu]

Agreed, but I was thinking there might be an argument here because this sale just proved that they were stolen as opposed to misplaced during the move. So a police report could possibly be filed now with this proof and then submitted to insurance.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Odds are an insurer would require a prompt claim, not years after the fact.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jobu

Agreed, but I was thinking there might be an argument here because this sale just proved that they were stolen as opposed to misplaced during the move. So a police report could possibly be filed now with this proof and then submitted to insurance.

The OP says the sale he discovered was from 2019.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The OP says the sale he discovered was from 2019.

Does it matter how recently the OP learned of the sale?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Does it matter how recently the OP learned of the sale?

I probably could have worded that better.

If the OP just learned about this sale recently, would that detail be relevant in this situation?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I probably could have worded that better.

If the OP just learned about this sale recently, would that detail be relevant in this situation?

Only if it was somehow fraudulently concealed, perhaps. But as the facts stand, he would be making a claim four years after he could have discovered the theft, and god knows how many years after the actual theft since Steve didn't say. I cannot imagine an insurer even considering such a claim assuming they have the usual requirement for prompt notice.

Arguably he could have discovered the theft even earlier had he inspected the items delivered by the moving company but we don't even need to go there.

Very unfortunate circumstance and it sucks on top of having health issues.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Only if it was somehow fraudulently concealed, perhaps. But as the facts stand, he would be making a claim four years after he could have discovered the theft, and god knows how many years after the actual theft since Steve didn't say. I cannot imagine an insurer even considering such a claim assuming they have the usual requirement for prompt notice.

I guess that makes sense, particularly from an insurer's point of view.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I guess that makes sense, particularly from an insurer's point of view.

An insurer will typically find any and every reason to deny a claim or pay as little as possible. It's what they do. But notice requirements typically are not unreasonable IMO.

Which is why it goes without saying that if anything happens to you for which you have insurance coverage, you should immediately notify your agent if you have one, or the insurance company.